Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[absolutelymilk]

What is more important PPM or safety?

Obviously its a balance, it would be more safe to run trains at 10mph but that doesn't mean we should do it!

 

[Dave1987]

Obviously its a balance, it would be more safe to run trains at 10mph but that doesn't mean we should do it!

I just get the feeling from your posts that PPM is the most important thing bar none. Two times I've had a problem in service which involved me having to leave the cab. Fortunately both times I had a guard on board and it was fantastic. I could concentrate on what I needed to do and the guard kept passengers informed. If I need to leave the train I know there is a safety critical member of staff on board. The rule book has just had an amendment to it because the RAIB & RSSB have acknowledged there is a real risk of passengers detraining themselves.

 

[Surreytraveller]

If the OBS is the way forward then it should be legally required for one to be on every train or it doesn't run.

I do seem to recall many years ago, when trains with accessible toilets were first being introduced, the accessible toilet had to be working, or the train wouldn't enter service, as a facility wouldn't be available to disabled passengers that would be available to everyone else if there was also a smaller toilet available for use.

And we all know that happens, don't we.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is more important PPM or safety?

The trouble is, safety is off the agenda, because so much has been installed over recent years, such as TPWS, high-tech track recording trains, driver monitoring, OTMRs, crash-worthy rolling stock, etc, that we are well overdue a big crash that could have been preventable.

Safety is on the back-burner. Until something happens.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have heard rumours that social media is being looked at by Southern.

At least somebody is being kept in a job, then. Must try and protect what's left of their reputation. And something else to bully the staff with.

 

[FordFocus]

What is more important PPM or safety?

I knew of a driver who was obsessed with making PPM. No longer drives as he has had several incidents including station overruns for heavily braking to make up time, fail to calls, leaving passengers behind on DOO services and finally a SPAD at a station as he was rushing to close doors and set off.

I've avoided this thread for a bit but I see the same bunch of posters see that destaffing the railway a good thing with no obvious benefit to them. There won't be any lower fares and no one to help when things go wrong. Outsourcing hasn't covered itself in glory unless your a TOC accountant. G4S/STM over the years have had an horrific reputation on these forums for their methods and lack of knowledge about tickets. Some TOCs have cut station staff hours and replaced their presence with a security guard who has little to no knowledge about the railway.

This OBS grade will disappear when Govia go. It's a job that isn't operationally required on the railway, has no requirement to have spare OBS sitting around to cover trains and will be phased out by cheaper RPIs with the same skill set. They'll wind down the numbers through natural wastage then ultimately remove the rest through redundancy.

On the subject of disability..... The railway is slowly going through a major fleet refurbishment to accommodate the new regulations in 2020 for disabled people. Spending millions on sending rolling stock in for modification work and then when everything is modified there won't be any guards or station staff to help assist disabled passengers. Not just the folk with restricted mobility but blind, deaf, the elderly or people with learning difficulties who also need assistance.

 

[radamfi]

What is more important PPM or safety?

If some people switch from cars to trains because of improved reliability and punctuality then any slight worsening in train safety would be outweighed by fewer car accidents.

 

[GadgetMan]

If some people switch from cars to trains because of improved reliability and punctuality then any slight worsening in train safety would be outweighed by fewer car accidents.

Great logic,

So if a passenger is injured/killed on the railway we can just turn around to their family and say they would've been equally worse off if they'd stuck with travelling in their car instead.

Yep, instead of making society a safer place where practical we should aim to continue to injure/kill just as many as we do now, purposely reducing safety on the railway to keep the populations injury rate static.

 

[HH]

Great logic,

So if a passenger is injured/killed on the railway we can just turn around to their family and say they would've been equally worse off if they'd stuck with travelling in their car instead.

Yep, instead of making society a safer place where practical we should aim to continue to injure/kill just as many as we do now, purposely reducing safety on the railway to keep the populations injury rate static.

If making the railways more reliable takes people from a less safe mode of transport to a greater then there would be an overall gain, providing that the changes don't make the railway less safe to the degree that there is no net gain. There is an unwritten assumption to this effect in what he said.

What it does not suppose is that he would say anything of the sort to the family of a passenger who was injured or killed; nor does it follow that he wishes to purposely reduce safety to keep the injury rate static - in fact that's the exact opposite of his proposition. This is a well-known logical fallacy known as a straw man and you managed two of them in a short post. Congratulations!

 

[DarloRich]

If some people switch from cars to trains because of improved reliability and punctuality then any slight worsening in train safety would be outweighed by fewer car accidents.

If making the railways more reliable takes people from a less safe mode of transport to a greater then there would be an overall gain, providing that the changes don't make the railway less safe to the degree that there is no net gain. There is an unwritten assumption to this effect in what he said.

What it does not suppose is that he would say anything of the sort to the family of a passenger who was injured or killed; nor does it follow that he wishes to purposely reduce safety to keep the injury rate static - in fact that's the exact opposite of his proposition. This is a well-known logical fallacy known as a straw man and you managed two of them in a short post. Congratulations!

But the change in percentage of either metric would be negligible, if identifiable at all. Practically it seems like a non argument, logical or otherwise.

 

[HH]

But the change in percentage of either metric would be negligible, if identifiable at all. Practically it seems like a non argument, logical or otherwise.

Ah, to you or me that might be true. To the DfT...

 

[DarloRich]

Ah, to you or me that might be true. To the DfT...

well why didn't you say - They obviously have more sensitive/accurate methods of collecting the data!

 

[TheEdge]

Obviously its a balance, it would be more safe to run trains at 10mph but that doesn't mean we should do it!

No, there is no balance.

PPM can go piddle up a rope if achieving it isn't safe.

 

[DarloRich]

No, there is no balance.

PPM can go piddle up a rope if achieving it isn't safe.

this, this and thrice this!

 

[absolutelymilk]

No, there is no balance.

PPM can go piddle up a rope if achieving it isn't safe.

How safe are we talking? One in a million chance of something going wrong? One in a billion? There is no way that the railways can be absolutely safe, with zero chance of something going wrong.

 

[TheEdge]

How safe are we talking? One in a million chance of something going wrong? One in a billion? There is no way that the railways can be absolutely safe, with zero chance of something going wrong.

No. But we can run them as safe as possible. There is a reason in the UK something like a trap and drag or crossing collision is really the most serious incidents we ever see. There is a reason we don't see crashes like the recent ones in Germany and Spain. Or the regular runaway and derailments in North America.

You could claim the we, as an industry, are obsessed with safety to a fault. Feel free to think that. You could suggest why keep a second safety person on the train when one is (barely) adequate. We can't prevent every possible accident. We can mitigate against them. The second safety trained person on a train is exactly that mitigation. It means when something goes wrong it is more unlikely that the people who know what they are doing are incapacitated.

I ask again. Southern want DOO on the Brighton Mainline. You've been in a crash, linespeed and direction of travel is unknown to you. The driver is dead, the fire is taking hold, the signaller has no idea anything has happened. When is the next train coming? Which direction? Which rails and cables carry a fatal 750V? Which don't? Which rails can move and crush your feet? Where is the nearest position of safety? Are you confident you can get off alive, alone?

 

[HLE]

No. But we can run them as safe as possible. There is a reason in the UK something like a trap and drag or crossing collision is really the most serious incidents we ever see. There is a reason we don't see crashes like the recent ones in Germany and Spain. Or the regular runaway and derailments in North America.

You could claim the we, as an industry, are obsessed with safety to a fault. Feel free to think that. You could suggest why keep a second safety person on the train when one is (barely) adequate. We can't prevent every possible accident. We can mitigate against them. The second safety trained person on a train is exactly that mitigation. It means when something goes wrong it is more unlikely that the people who know what they are doing are incapacitated.

I ask again. Southern want DOO on the Brighton Mainline. You've been in a crash, linespeed and direction of travel is unknown to you. The driver is dead, the fire is taking hold, the signaller has no idea anything has happened. When is the next train coming? Which direction? Which rails and cables carry a fatal 750V? Which don't? Which rails can move and crush your feet? Where is the nearest position of safety? Are you confident you can get off alive, alone?

Excellently put.

If only the RMT put that out as a potential scenario then they might get somewhere.

 

[phoenixcronin]

Excellently put.

If only the RMT put that out as a potential scenario then they might get somewhere.

Instead we get penny pinching, France, fat cats and profits.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Put barriers on cinema doors and everything else you say can be made to fit cinemas, except that there is less potential for people to do stupid things and kill themselves in a cinema

And of course in a cinema the one safety trained person has less chance of being the first one injured or incapacitated.

The reality is that the driver can only place the short circuit bar etc if they have not been hurt in the incident that has lead to its required use. Yes it might be rare but so are incidents in cinemas etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But I really do think my post regards to the conductor costing pence per journey per passenger was a very poignant point and is something that the unions should look into in more detail (If I do say so myself)

The issue is that whilst the cost per passenger mile might be extremely low the number of passenger miles is extremely high and therefore the end saving is significant.

 

[Carlisle]

I ask again. Southern want DOO on the Brighton Mainline. You've been in a crash, linespeed and direction of travel is unknown to you. The driver is dead, the fire is taking hold, the signaller has no idea anything has happened.

So your saying we should have never been allowed to run trains for a 100+years pre CSR (introduced for DOO) on this and other lines where in your given Scenario the second staff member assuming they're not injured could have easily been at least a mile or more away from the nearest point to communicate information to the signalman anyway

 

[Chrisgr31]

I think for the customer, the most important thing to them is that the train runs on time above all else.

Hence they might feel shortchanged without a guard and the service that brings (but most will likely not give two thoughts). However if the train is delayed or cancelled, they will be downright angry as it impacts their plans and they expect their trains to be on time. I don't believe the presence of a guard or OBS will offset to them the anger or inconvenience of a delayed or cancelled train.

There is a hierarchy of customer demands on a journey and I would say 'running on time' is at the top of that hierarchy.

Personally I don't expect a train to be on time! If I have to be somewhere at a specified time I invariably catch the one before the one I have to catch so giving me additional leeway in case of delays cancellations.

I am not angry because trains are late or cancelled as I know that happens. If I go by car I have to guess when I am going to arrive, at least going by train one can have a more reasonable stab at when it will arrive.

What annoys me is the difficulty in getting information about delays and cancellations. Invariably if there is disruption Southern will say there are delays of up to 30/60/90 minutes. This is absolutely useless as it tells me nothing. I want to know if I am better off staying where I am, or going a different route. Southern should know where the train is to run my service they should therefore be in a position to be able to be more accurate about how late it will be. Its not the delays that anoy me its the lack of information about them.

 

[TheEdge]

So your saying we should have never been allowed to run trains for a 100+years pre CSR (introduced primarily for DOO) on this and other lines where in your given Scenario the second staff member assuming they're not injured could have easily been at least a mile or more away from the nearest point to communicate information to the signalman anyway

No, I'm saying that we shouldn't be deliberately taking a backward step safety wise, which is exactly what this is.

 

[Muttley]

So your saying we should have never been allowed to run trains for a 100+years pre CSR (introduced for DOO) on this and other lines where in your given Scenario the second staff member assuming they're not injured could have easily been at least a mile or more away from the nearest point to communicate information to the signalman anyway

Just watch the latest Red video, the one that's now banned.
That's the biggest anti-DOO propaganda out there, promoted by the powers that be, right up until they realised what they'd done.

 

[bengley]

Just watch the latest Red video, the one that's now banned.
That's the biggest anti-DOO propaganda out there, promoted by the powers that be, right up until they realised what they'd done.

Would that be the Southeastern fire one?

 

[TheEdge]

Just watch the latest Red video, the one that's now banned.
That's the biggest anti-DOO propaganda out there, promoted by the powers that be, right up until they realised what they'd done.

What, the unknowing driver suffering a self evacuation after a fire when a kid was killed by a train on the adjacent line?

Ladies and gentlemen, DOO.

 

[tsr]

What, the unknowing driver suffering a self evacuation after a fire when a kid was killed by a train on the adjacent line?

Ladies and gentlemen, DOO.

Or to put it another way, DOO is when you don't have somebody patrolling your train who, at least once, has been lying in bed at 6pm wondering if they'd be able to keep the passengers safe if that scenario happened at 3 the next morning - and being reassured by 4-6 months of safety training and route knowledge, but still rehearsing it in their head.

I think at this point in the thread it really is possible to see how, throughout its length, people are very committed to debating this and caring about the issue, and this is the grim reality of why. Keep it going...

 

[JamesTT]

The issue is that whilst the cost per passenger mile might be extremely low the number of passenger miles is extremely high and therefore the end saving is significant.

As I mentioned in a previous post the cost to Southern of employing guards in salary benefits pension employers NI etc I expect is around £21 million pounds even if it was double that figure, it pales into insignificance when considering the subsidy paid to the railways is nearly £5 billion. Plus also it was rightly pointed out guards make money in ticket sales.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No. But we can run them as safe as possible. There is a reason in the UK something like a trap and drag or crossing collision is really the most serious incidents we ever see. There is a reason we don't see crashes like the recent ones in Germany and Spain. Or the regular runaway and derailments in North America.

You could claim the we, as an industry, are obsessed with safety to a fault. Feel free to think that. You could suggest why keep a second safety person on the train when one is (barely) adequate. We can't prevent every possible accident. We can mitigate against them. The second safety trained person on a train is exactly that mitigation. It means when something goes wrong it is more unlikely that the people who know what they are doing are incapacitated.

I ask again. Southern want DOO on the Brighton Mainline. You've been in a crash, linespeed and direction of travel is unknown to you. The driver is dead, the fire is taking hold, the signaller has no idea anything has happened. When is the next train coming? Which direction? Which rails and cables carry a fatal 750V? Which don't? Which rails can move and crush your feet? Where is the nearest position of safety? Are you confident you can get off alive, alone?

Don't forget that the company will just point to the 'excellent job' Thameslink do of running DOO trains and that the Gatwick Express and Southern Express between Brighton and London also run driver only as well.

 

[Dieseldriver]

So your saying we should have never been allowed to run trains for a 100+years pre CSR (introduced for DOO) on this and other lines where in your given Scenario the second staff member assuming they're not injured could have easily been at least a mile or more away from the nearest point to communicate information to the signalman anyway

OK, so the average punter is aware of detonators and TC clips then? They're all trained in emergency protection?

 

[JamesTT]

OK, so the average punter is aware of detonators and TC clips then? They're all trained in emergency protection?

Of course the average punter does not know what these are. As the average punter doesn't on all the services that already run DOO or with a Guard

 

[infobleep]

Of course the average punter does not know what these are. As the average punter doesn't on all the services that already run DOO or with a Guard

Perhaps they should be told then?

Back in the very early days of rail travel, they use to run with open carriages. A fifth class.

Eventually they got rid of it. I think perhaps we should bring it back. After all it would help keep the costs of the railways down. An open carriage is cheaper to build than a closed one.

It may be dangerous but who cares about such things as safety these days? If someone is stupid enough to fall out of an open carriage then that's their fault and if someone else pushes them, well that's potentially murder and we have laws to prosecute people for that.

I wonder if Southern will blame the system fault for showing all in service trains as delayed, on staff sickness? It's a national problem it seems or at least one affecting South West Trains too.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Chrisgr31]

As I mentioned in a previous post the cost to Southern of employing guards in salary benefits pension employers NI etc I expect is around £21 million pounds even if it was double that figure, it pales into insignificance when considering the subsidy paid to the railways is nearly £5 billion. Plus also it was rightly pointed out guards make money in ticket sales.

Not disagreeing with you at all. The problem appears to be the DfT believes they can get someone cheaper to do the ticket sales bit and they don't need someone to do the safety related bit. Yes I know initially the OBS won't be cheaper as they'll be converted conductors, but in time they will be cheaper.

Incidentally on this note has there been a reduction in revenue protection officers over the years? Used to see them maybe once or twice a month, now never see them.

 

[HLE]

Not disagreeing with you at all. The problem appears to be the DfT believes they can get someone cheaper to do the ticket sales bit and they don't need someone to do the safety related bit. Yes I know initially the OBS won't be cheaper as they'll be converted conductors, but in time they will be cheaper.

Incidentally on this note has there been a reduction in revenue protection officers over the years? Used to see them maybe once or twice a month, now never see them.

Yes there has up here in the midlands too.

RPI are optional staff