Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[DarloRich]

Perhaps a group of safety experts could be convened to examine all the evidence properly, with representation from unions, DfT, TOCs, passenger groups, disability advocacy groups, etc - with both sides agreeing at the outset to accept the result?

Indeed - there should be a fully independent and binding review of the safety of DDO.

but that is far too sensible as one side will be unhappy!

 

[TheEdge]

If Aslef chooses not to, or cannot because of existing contracts where it has in effect already agreed to it many years ago, then the national big picture changes somewhat. I could see that the extension of DOO-P at TOCS which already have it on any route would be virtually impossible to argue against.

(Cover note; I'm being theoretic here and refer to Greater Anglia as the franchise, not the TOC)

It might be interesting to see if, heaven forbid that did happen how it will impact franchises like Greater Anglia made up of conjoined older franchises. Obviously the Greater Anglia franchise is made up of what used to be Anglia, Great Eastern and WAGN. Ex-WAGN is totally DOO, ex-GE there is extensive DOO on the GEML and Southend but not entirely (Clacton and the GEML branches), ex-Anglia there is no DOO at all. In many ways they do still impact the franchise.

So, yes, as a whole the franchise does have DOO so could be extended a la Southern. But Southern drivers (I presume) all work some DOO services so have experience. Drivers in the ex-Anglia region don't at all, so it would be an entirely new concept to all concerned so could it be forcible in the same way?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed - there should be a fully independent and binding review of the safety of DDO.

but that is far too sensible as one side will be unhappy!

What like a certain Charles Horton on the board for the RSSB?

 

[DarloRich]

What like a certain Charles Horton on the board for the RSSB?

I couldn't possibly comment other than to say I am sure there is no conflict of interest at all.

 

[XDM]

It's not true that DOO is a 'totally new concept for Anglia drivers'. For a couple of years 170's operated through trains from Liverpool st to Lowestoft or Yarmouth,DOO to at least Ipswich. So the precedent has been set. The through service was withdrawn because such short trains were judged a misuse of track capacity. They were often quite full.

 

[TheEdge]

It's not true that DOO is a 'totally new concept for Anglia drivers'. For a couple of years 170's operated through trains from Liverpool st to Lowestoft or Yarmouth,DOO to at least Ipswich. So the precedent has been set. The through service was withdrawn because such short trains were judged a misuse of track capacity. They were often quite full.

A DOO service which was not completely DOO (often a guard was on anyway) and has long since been cancelled so any drivers who started after that stopped has done (a lot) and the few who have have obviously not done DOO for 6 years to date, which will probably be closer to a decade by the time it could possibly happen.

And Anglia as a region has never had DOO, that service was only ever DOO on the GEML.

 

[quantinghome]

Indeed - there should be a fully independent and binding review of the safety of DDO.

but that is far too sensible as one side will be unhappy!

DOO has been operating on various parts of the rail network for many years:
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/last-stand-old-guard/

I'm not a rail safety expert, but surely this must have been approved by the RSSB, ORR or their predecessors? (Happy to be corrected by anyone with more knowledge about this.)

A quick google search found a recent publication by the RSSB:http://www.rssb.co.uk/library/research-development-and-innovation/research-brief-T1035.pdf

This states that about 30% of rail services are DOO at present. If that's the case, isn't it going to be very difficult to argue against further rollout of DOO on safety grounds?

 

[ctom_s]

That is my interpretation too.

I always thought the GatEx 12 car issue was a bit silly and doomed to failure.

The extension of DOO across the Southern network, to routes that currently have no DOO at all, is entirely different I think. Driving a new DOO train that just happens to be a few metres longer than the DOO train you have been driving for some years, stopping at the same stations on the same route is entirely different, I think, to introducing DOO somewhere completely new where it doesn't exist.

Aslef, if it decides to concentrate on no more Southern DOO will however need to check any agreements, contracts, conditions etc are all watertight or it will end up with no money left!

If Aslef chooses not to, or cannot because of existing contracts where it has in effect already agreed to it many years ago, then the national big picture changes somewhat. I could see that the extension of DOO-P at TOCS which already have it on any route would be virtually impossible to argue against.

This comment is interesting, as about 50 pages ago it seems the majority of posters on here were very much in support of the unions against the extension of DOO to the 12-car trains on GatEx which is what I believe started this dispute?

Now it seems the majority and given up on that and are concentrating on the wider problems of extending DOO everywhere. Is this just based on the fact that it appears inevitable after this dispute that they will look to widen DOO operation or have they now come out and said they will extend it?

 

[PHILIPE]

DOO has been operating on various parts of the rail network for many years:
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/last-stand-old-guard/

I'm not a rail safety expert, but surely this must have been approved by the RSSB, ORR or their predecessors? (Happy to be corrected by anyone with more knowledge about this.)

A quick google search found a recent publication by the RSSB:http://www.rssb.co.uk/library/research-development-and-innovation/research-brief-T1035.pdf

This states that about 30% of rail services are DOO at present. If that's the case, isn't it going to be very difficult to argue against further rollout of DOO on safety grounds?

The ORR have confirmed that DOO services are safe. But, is this for the safe operation of trains and not for the passengers ?

 

[74A]

If Aslef chooses not to, or cannot because of existing contracts where it has in effect already agreed to it many years ago, then the national big picture changes somewhat. I could see that the extension of DOO-P at TOCS which already have it on any route would be virtually impossible to argue against.

It was agreed to in 1984. Any driver who joined before privatisation will have had the standard BR contract so it will be in there. And any new drivers who joined later will take on the existing T & C so you could quite easily argue its in all drivers contracts.

 

[Deepgreen]

The ORR have confirmed that DOO services are safe. But, is this for the safe operation of trains and not for the passengers ?

I don't think the ORR will have deemed an operation of passenger trains safe with the exception of the passengers! "Safe" will mean that passenger carrying can be undertaken safely on the trains concerned. It's no good having a train that runs safely except when passengers are aboard - although, hang on...!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This thread concerning the thread title matter of "In the context of Southern guards voting to strike" has now been running since 1st April (heaven forbid any connection being drawn to that particular date) so how many strike days have there actually been since that date on that area?

I ask this, noting the RMT have given four strike days notice out of six in the ScotRail dispute.

 

[swt_passenger]

This comment is interesting, as about 50 pages ago it seems the majority of posters on here were very much in support of the unions against the extension of DOO to the 12-car trains on GatEx which is what I believe started this dispute?

It would certainly appear that the main plank of the union's argument, that there was an agreed upper limit of 10 car for DOO(P) on GatEx, had never been documented.

But hasn't it been some sort of 'golden rule' quoted in similar discussions in various rail forums (including this one) for quite a few years?

 

[Carlisle]

(Clacton and the GEML branches), ex-Anglia there is no DOO at all. :

Clacton and Walton would have gone DOO yearss ago when the rest of that suburban area did iunder BR but the branch lines signalling wasn't suitable at the time

 

[Bald Rick]

It would certainly appear that the main plank of the union's argument, that there was an agreed upper limit of 10 car for DOO(P) on GatEx, had never been documented.

But hasn't it been some sort of 'golden rule' quoted in similar discussions in various rail forums (including this one) for quite a few years?

Which was precisely the question I asked on an ancestor of this thread two months ago, and was assured that it was documented. It would seem to have been an incorrect assurance.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2526859#post2526859

 

[PHILIPE]

I'm worried the unions will be ground down in the end after a long drawn out and brave struggle in the interests of safety. With the Government behind this, it is more difficult to win than just against the TOC on it's own. Another fear is that the extension of DOO would then open the flood gates for other cuts on board trains and at stations which would not be in the best interests of passengers.

 

[JamesTT]

The RMT, as a separate trade union, are not bound by anything ASLEF agree. However it does undermine their strike action as, should GTR force through the changes, strike action will not prevent services from running.

As an aside, Justice Supperstone has a long history of anti-trade union judgments, including a recent case where he found that people in the construction industry who had illegally "blacklisted" union members should not be tried at criminal law for their actions. His rationale was that they'd said sorry so they shouldn't face criminal sanctions for their 40 years of illegal blacklisting.

I wonder if ASLEF and RMT were not such staunch campaigners against the EU they would have considered going to a european court with this case

 

[74A]

It would certainly appear that the main plank of the union's argument, that there was an agreed upper limit of 10 car for DOO(P) on GatEx, had never been documented.

But hasn't it been some sort of 'golden rule' quoted in similar discussions in various rail forums (including this one) for quite a few years?

I think the main thing to come out of the judgement was that it didn't matter if it were documented or not. It was unreasonable to refuse to work 12 car DOO trains as DOO is something the drivers routinely do.

The other thing was that as 12 car trains already operate on Southern and Thameslink it made no sense to say they couldn't be operated on Gatwick Express.

As I said before the whole ASLEF stance of no extension is nonsense. You already work DOO trains from A to B so why not work them from B to C. If ASLEF really want to fight DOO they can but that would mean a campaign to bring back guards on ALL trains not this ridiculous idea that you can stop DOO at this point and no further.

 

[speedy_sticks]

I think the main thing to come out of the judgement was that it didn't matter if it were documented or not. It was unreasonable to refuse to work 12 car DOO trains as DOO is something the drivers routinely do.

The other thing was that as 12 car trains already operate on Southern and Thameslink it made no sense to say they couldn't be operated on Gatwick Express.

As I said before the whole ASLEF stance of no extension is nonsense. You already work DOO trains from A to B so why not work them from B to C. If ASLEF really want to fight DOO they can but that would mean a campaign to bring back guards on ALL trains not this ridiculous idea that you can stop DOO at this point and no further.

Disabled don't matter?

 

[455driver]

Disabled don't matter?

Just a thought I have had, are there any MPs who are registered disabled?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Disabled don't matter?

If that is the primary issue (and it is certainly a relevant one), the campaign should surely not have anything to do with 8 vs 12 car and should instead be campaigning for removal of existing DOO or provision of platform staff at all stations throughout the period of service? (Either of those would have the same effect in terms of accessibility - indeed, the latter may have some advantages over a guard on board).

 

[XDM]

Everyone seems to have assumed the costs ASLEF must pay are £250,000 - about £14 an active member. No way. The quarter of a million is just a part payment to be made in three weeks. It seems it may be much more in total.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The legal term used apparently was 'payment on account'.

 

[Flamingo]

Everyone seems to have assumed the costs ASLEF must pay are £250,000 - about £14 an active member. No way. The quarter of a million is just a part payment to be made in three weeks. It seems it may be much more in total.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The legal term used apparently was 'payment on account'.

Your source for this is?

 

[philthetube]

I can see further disputes panning out the way this one is, the unions not able to take action but the staff individually taking decisions, as is currently happening, which affects the service. This could give companies huge problems as if the union has not called action, officially, it would have no remit to negotiate on behalf of members so what happens.

The current refusal of drivers to work overtime is not a union action so there is no obvious route to negotiating an agreement.

 

[Bald Rick]

Your source for this is?

Presumably my post #3399 above! (Which is my opinion).

 

[redbutton]

I think the main thing to come out of the judgement was that it didn't matter if it were documented or not. It was unreasonable to refuse to work 12 car DOO trains as DOO is something the drivers routinely do.

The other thing was that as 12 car trains already operate on Southern and Thameslink it made no sense to say they couldn't be operated on Gatwick Express.

Why shouldn't it matter what the agreement says? Why even have an agreement if the company can just ignore it as it suits? Where would it end? Today it's 12-car DOO, tomorrow it's 5 minutes less PNB. It's only 5 minutes, right?

There's no 12-car DOO on Southern even after the court settlement, and the T&C is explicit that a conductor should be provided on all services in excess of 10 cars unless there is disruption.

GX operate under a different T&C, which doesn't appear to have the same wording, hence the court case.


I think the main thing to come out of the judgement was that it didn't matter if it were documented or not. It was unreasonable to refuse to work 12 car DOO trains as DOO is something the drivers routinely do.

The other thing was that as 12 car trains already operate on Southern and Thameslink it made no sense to say they couldn't be operated on Gatwick Express.

As I said before the whole ASLEF stance of no extension is nonsense. You already work DOO trains from A to B so why not work them from B to C. If ASLEF really want to fight DOO they can but that would mean a campaign to bring back guards on ALL trains not this ridiculous idea that you can stop DOO at this point and no further.

The difference is if A to B is a metro route with an average 35mph line speed, a signal or station (and therefore a SPT) every half mile, and emergency services available within a few minutes, and B to C is a rural branch with unstaffed stations dozens of miles apart, and emergency services half an hour away or more, then I think you can see how we would argue that the safety case can't be applied from one to the other.

Also, when DOO was originally brought in, it was a completely different safety culture to today. The driver's workload and the consequences of mistakes (both in terms of the potential harm and the risks to a driver's career and even freedom) are much higher now.

 

[Carlisle]

The driver's workload and the consequences of mistakes (both in terms of the potential harm and the risks to a driver's career and even freedom) are much higher now.

drivers are defiantly more closely monitored, micro managed and expected to show far more professionalism at all times these days but their actual workload on non DOO services will surely be very similar to what it always was or maybe on occasion slightly easier with some newer technology helping out here and there, depending on what traction and part of the network we're discussing

 

[Deepgreen]

drivers are defiantly more closely monitored, micro managed and expected to show far more professionalism at all times these days but their actual workload on non DOO services will surely be very similar to what it always was or maybe on occasion slightly easier with some newer technology helping out here and there, depending on what traction and part of the network we're discussing

Why defiantly?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Your source for this is?

It's in the ASLEF statement that £250,000 needs to be paid on account, not that £250,000 is the final bill. XDM is probably right: I would expect GTR's costs to be more than this, probably in the low seven-figures.

 

[Flamingo]

It's in the ASLEF statement that £250,000 needs to be paid on account, not that £250,000 is the final bill. XDM is probably right: I would expect GTR's costs to be more than uthis, probably in the low seven-figures.

Thanks.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder if ASLEF and RMT were not such staunch campaigners against the EU they would have considered going to a European court with this case

I wonder if they are celebrating the vote to leave the EU with the smug satisfaction in the knowledge that they were the only two rail unions to go against the "Remain" campaign.