Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[ComUtoR]

drivers vacancies are few and far between plus i am now to old for that.

Never too old. There is no upper age limit.

 

[Flamingo]

Never too old. There is no upper age limit.

I don't remember seeing many 60 year old's in training...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A very well thought out post. Sadly, however, your suggestions regarding what would be a very substantial investment in staff training, fail to appreciate that the sole purpose of the 'OBS' exercise etc is to cut staff and cut costs.

This isn't about investing in staff, in any way shape or form, nor is it about the 'customer experience'. Very much the opposite.

Exactly. The whole project is a cost-cutting exercise.

 

[philthetube]

Nope, because it's not in my gift and I have other things to do. I can see people have valid points all round, but in the end there has to be a workable solution.

If it was up to me:

1. It'd get written agreements about train manning, I support two people on the train most of the time. There should be some exceptions for operational requirements (ECS, emergency workings, heavily used parts of the network where there is manning on platforms and metro ops).

2. Trade off stuff like traditional route learning and detonator protection for guards, for flexibility, go anywhere status, and enhance the passenger experience to the full extent, fully meeting the equity act. Traditional route knowledge should be replaced by a type of google maps for rail, powered by a continuous data stream (tied into wifi and other signalling data, DSD activation), with emergency calls built in, so the control centre can pinpoint the exact position. Passengers should be able to call the Guard/Driver/Control centre at all times. Announcements can be from Guard/Driver/Control centre.

3. Get rid of station barriers (except metro areas) and most ticket offices (except very busy stations) and make the guard (or other name like OBS) the centre of customer service, give him/her the authority to make judgements on things customer service wise rather than sticking rigidly to procedure. Fully safety trained with first aid, dealing with emergencies.

4. Have no compulsory redundancies.

5. Take the safety of door operation from both the driver and guard, recognising technology may offer a better solution.

6. Move some of the training away from the TOCs and NR, to college based BTEC type qualifications and third party training. BTECs in rail ops, would include understand all the operation roles on the railway, not just one role. The training for the majority of most ops roles can be done with classroom training and simulators. They should be fully certificated and be recognised outside/inside the industry.

7. Introduce professional railway management qualifications at colleges and universities.

8. Make use of technology where it is sensible to introduce enhancements in operations, energy consumption, safety, and efficiency.

9. Unions should move from political organisations to trade organisations.

10. I'd have had full consultation with all concerned, thus in order to take on their points of view, do full risk assessments. Explain how all roles on the railway work together via presentations.

That's my position on these matters.

Great post, not that I agree with all of it, my thoughts.

1) ok but including meaningful penalties to toc's when running single manned, not to be paid if good reason for single person operation

2) Mostly ok, detonator definatley needed on occasions and probably always will be. You cannot rely on Google maps etc. unless everything is 100% reliable, the Americans could always switch off GPS and the European one? well we are no longer in Europe, losing this system for any reason would mean no trains for a long time.

3) Asking a lot of one guard, try riding a pacer from Colne to Preston, it may never get full but there are always fares missed because of lack of time, get rid of offices and barriers and you make this problem network wide, there are far to many chancers to be able to rely on peoples honesty.

4) Agree

5) I don,t see how this can work, any intelligent system is probably going to wait until the doors are clear before closing,in reality it is the doors closing which force the issue and allow them to close.

6) Agree in part, Driver training should be handled centrally, the bill should not fall on the companies who do it, to the benefit of those who poach. I don't think it matters who trains obs/guards/conductors or whatever, there is not the same staff retention issues with those grades.

7) Agree

8) Agree, particularly with regard to dispatch, I feel the second member of staff on a train should be moniroring the platform via cctv until the train is fully departed, with access ro an emergency brake, cutting out dragging incidents, which none of currently used dispatch procedures does.

9) I don't have an opinion, however I can't see how you could force change.

10) Can't possibly argue with that.

 

[DarloRich]

Nope, because it's not in my gift and I have other things to do. I can see people have valid points all round, but in the end there has to be a workable solution.

If it was up to me:

1. It'd get written agreements about train manning, I support two people on the train most of the time. There should be some exceptions for operational requirements (ECS, emergency workings, heavily used parts of the network where there is manning on platforms and metro ops).

2. Trade off stuff like traditional route learning and detonator protection for guards, for flexibility, go anywhere status, and enhance the passenger experience to the full extent, fully meeting the equity act. Traditional route knowledge should be replaced by a type of google maps for rail, powered by a continuous data stream (tied into wifi and other signalling data, DSD activation), with emergency calls built in, so the control centre can pinpoint the exact position. Passengers should be able to call the Guard/Driver/Control centre at all times. Announcements can be from Guard/Driver/Control centre.

3. Get rid of station barriers (except metro areas) and most ticket offices (except very busy stations) and make the guard (or other name like OBS) the centre of customer service, give him/her the authority to make judgements on things customer service wise rather than sticking rigidly to procedure. Fully safety trained with first aid, dealing with emergencies.

4. Have no compulsory redundancies.

5. Take the safety of door operation from both the driver and guard, recognising technology may offer a better solution.

6. Move some of the training away from the TOCs and NR, to college based BTEC type qualifications and third party training. BTECs in rail ops, would include understand all the operation roles on the railway, not just one role. The training for the majority of most ops roles can be done with classroom training and simulators. They should be fully certificated and be recognised outside/inside the industry.

7. Introduce professional railway management qualifications at colleges and universities.

8. Make use of technology where it is sensible to introduce enhancements in operations, energy consumption, safety, and efficiency.

9. Unions should move from political organisations to trade organisations.

10. I'd have had full consultation with all concerned, thus in order to take on their points of view, do full risk assessments. Explain how all roles on the railway work together via presentations.

That's my position on these matters.

An interesting set of proposals - I would like to ask about no.9.

I see this suggestion made from time to time and wonder what that means and what that looks like. Could you provide further and better particulars?

 

[XDM]

As long as hsts are running i know i can set the alarm for work, once they have gone i will have no role to play in the industry. I will have to be another burden on the state.

No you won't. From your posts you are protected staff,you have been in our industry for years & you are over 60. Compared with private industry our pensions are heavenly & you will soon get your state pension too. So you won't be allowed to be a burden. But with your experience you could go for an OBS job,or even work a catering trolley. Lots of quite old people sell kit kats & coffee on the train. And wise dispatchers are needed in most TOCS.

 

[highdyke]

An interesting set of proposals - I would like to ask about no.9.

I see this suggestion made from time to time and wonder what that means and what that looks like. Could you provide further and better particulars?

Yes. Pay rates for some key railway roles now exceed graduate level and middle management rates of pay. People from many more backgrounds are now joining the railway.

Is it appropriate to be pushing messages about the struggling working class, the reason many unions were set up for?

Professional development, health and safety, and representing interests of the workforce by engaging with all parts of society, not just the extreme left wing. This means they built a productive working relationship with mangers and the public.

I see no problem with people representing themselves (Look at the federation of small business, Institute of directors, BMA) but I do see a problem with they way they push agendas.

I'd like to see Train drivers more at the level of First officer in the airlines and ROC controllers at the level of Air Traffic Control, not pushing an image more suited to 1900.

 

[SPADTrap]

I'd like to see Train drivers more at the level of First officer in the airlines and ROC controllers at the level of Air Traffic Control, not pushing an image more suited to 1900.

Could you expand on this, please? Not sure what you mean

 

[highdyke]

It's the image problem. It started in the 1960s when the railway boosted everything is done at the push of a button. People think railway work is low skilled. First officer training is very similar to the length of train driver, but the public don't see it that way. Not helped by the Union line. It does nothing to help the railways banish the them and us culture, which still bedevils it to this day. This is why there are such problems with change management.

 

[ComUtoR]

I don't remember seeing many 60 year old's in training...

55 is the oldest that I've seen join and I think there was someone who posted on the forum that was older.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It's the image problem. It started in the 1960s when the railway boosted everything is done at the push of a button. People think railway work is low skilled. First officer training is very similar to the length of train driver, but the public don't see it that way. Not helped by the Union line. It does nothing to help the railways banish the them and us culture, which still bedevils it to this day. This is why there are such problems with change management.

I'm glad you've brought up airlines. I wonder if you would mind telling us what the cabin crew training and staffing requirements are, say for an aeroplane with comparable seating capacity to an Airbus A321.

Not keen ? I'm not surprised. It blows the DOO nonsense clean out of the water, an Airbus A321 with 220 seats requires 5 cabin crew in addition to 2 pilots.

I think, even weighing up the different risks, dangers and differences in safety, for the railway to get away with 1 driver and 1 guard with safety training, the railway is being treated very fairly.

 

[highdyke]

I'm glad you've brought up airlines. I wonder if you would mind telling us what the cabin crew training and staffing requirements are, say for an aeroplane with comparable seating capacity to an Airbus A321.

Not keen ? I'm not surprised. It blows the DOO nonsense clean out of the water, an Airbus A321 with 220 seats requires 5 cabin crew in addition to 2 pilots.

I think, even weighing up the different risks, dangers and differences in safety, for the railway to get away with 1 driver and 1 guard with safety training, the railway is being treated very fairly.

No it doesn't Philip, it's a completely different form of transport. Highly controlled land based transport, that sits on rails, the line under strict supervision from signalling and control staff. The average journey length is 26 miles. Average journey time ranges from a few mins to a an hour or so.

This is not comparable, to something that flies several miles up, over deep oceans, crossing time zones, with little or no supervision in many areas.

 

[HowardGWR]

I don't suppose we could just discuss whether it is safe for drivers to open and shut the doors without discussing the role of other onboard staff (if there are any)?

My understanding is that the regulator says it is and the only attack on that conclusion on here has been to suggest that because the SR manager is one of the members of the safety board, we can asssume the compilers of the report are corrupt.

The question of having other onboard staff is a separate issue.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No it doesn't Philip, it's a completely different form of transport. Highly controlled land based transport, that sits on rails, the line under strict supervision from signalling and control staff. The average journey length is 26 miles. Average journey time ranges from a few mins to a an hour or so.

This is not comparable, to something that flies several miles up, over deep oceans, crossing time zones, with little or no supervision in many areas.

It's completely comparable - cabin crew are there to ensure the safety of passengers in the event of something happening to the aircraft.

Their primary safety critical role is evacuation upon an incident occurring during take off and landing, not really all that different to a derailment or collision involving a train. An aircraft can evacuate onto a potentially dangerous environment with fire and emergency service vehicles, whereas a train may be evacuating into an environment with passing trains, electrified third rail, damaged overhead wiring and also the possibility of fire.

Cabin crew of course have to deal with unruly passengers, the potential for terrorist incidents, issues with the storage of luggage, out of service toilets, that's exactly the same things that a train guard has to deal with.

The main differences you mention with cabin crew is in areas where they're not terribly useful, but where a second pilot is very useful. A cabin crew member can't help if the pilot falls ill when they're several miles in the sky, crossing oceans, or trying to avoid a mid-air collision, but a second pilot can. Those are all things which the railway doesn't have to deal with, so a second driver wouldn't be something that's needed.

The cabin crew role, on the other hand, is something that's directly comparable to a train guard. I worry if you can't see that.

 

[XDM]

Nonsense to say manning levels on aircraft should set the standard for rail. Aircraft have triplicate safety systems but when they fail they fail unsafe & fall five miles to the ground, on Lockerbie for example. A train that fails just stops, & even in the Severn tunnel or Forth bridge is accessible.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Nonsense to say manning levels on aircraft should set the standard for rail. Aircraft have triplicate safety systems but when they fail they fail unsafe & fall five miles to the ground, on Lockerbie for example. A train that fails just stops, & even in the Severn tunnel or Forth bridge is accessible.

If that's the case, and everybody on board an aircraft will die, why bother having safety critical cabin crew ? They're there for evacuation and passenger control purposes, the exact sort of role a guard (or other PTS trained staff member) is needed to do on a train.

The reality is a failed train in the Severn Tunnel is a significant safety issue if the passengers decide to alight themselves and jump out into the path of an oncoming train.

A guard can ensure if that happens, even if he's unable to stop such behaviour, he can get the passengers back in front of his own train, off the other track and keep them safe(r) whilst the driver (or vice versa) doubles back to lay protection.

I'm not calling for comparable numbers of safety critical staff onboard trains, but a driver on his own isn't sufficient, a driver plus a PTS trained member of staff, whatever he's doing, is acceptable.

 

[highdyke]

Other people are there to help with evacuation over most of mainline UK within minutes, where these is almost continuous radio and mobile coverage, that is not the case in deepest Nepal.

The OBS role is getting £33k, double most cabin crew. An OBS or Driver can get trains halted with one call.

As you say, there needs to be two pilots on a large commercial aircraft in case something happens and it falls out the sky, while a train will just come to a halt protected by the signalling system.

It's a very. very stupid comparison TBH.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Other people are there to help with evacuation over most of mainline UK within minutes, where these is almost continuous radio and mobile coverage, that is not the case in deepest Nepal.

The OBS role is getting £33k, double most cabin crew.

As you say, there needs to be two pilots on a large commercial aircraft in case something happens and it falls out the sky, while a train will just come to a halt protected by the signalling system.

It's a very. very stupid comparison TBH.

The continuous radio coverage argument doesn't hold water though - the derailment we've previously discussed with SouthEastern caused a GSM-R radio set to trip, most sets are operating without a battery backup, a loss of electrical supply for whatever reason will wipe out your continuous radio coverage and you might as well be in deepest Nepal.

Not all incidents happen within a convenient distance from a station, incidents like Ufton Nervet or Great Heck are prime examples of where cutting back on qualified staff could be dangerous.

 

[highdyke]

Been through all of this, it's about risk. Not going there again.

I don't mind answering sensible questions, but I'm not going round in circles.

The incident at Kent has been put to bed, it took several railway staff over 10 minute to inform the signaller, contrary to their duties. They had working mobiles and a working GSM radio in their back cab.

There is risk everywhere, you can never completely get rid of it.

A mate of mine fell down one step...yes one step...has not been able to walk properly for a year. Does that mean we should make bungalows mandatory? Let's say we did. Think of the urban sprawl, people would be forced to drive cars instead of walk. There's a risk of obesity there. Public transport wouldn't be very economic, so people will be forced to travel in less safe cars rather than trains. Then there's increased energy use. Climate change, risks to energy workers drilling for oil. Car makers have come out and said, we'd like to stop accidents and pollution. So are developing green driverless cars. This in turn has got people thinking about efficiencies in the railway industry, hence the DOO debate.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes. Pay rates for some key railway roles now exceed graduate level and middle management rates of pay. People from many more backgrounds are now joining the railway.

Is it appropriate to be pushing messages about the struggling working class, the reason many unions were set up for?

Professional development, health and safety, and representing interests of the workforce by engaging with all parts of society, not just the extreme left wing. This means they built a productive working relationship with mangers and the public.

I see no problem with people representing themselves (Look at the federation of small business, Institute of directors, BMA) but I do see a problem with they way they push agendas.

I'd like to see Train drivers more at the level of First officer in the airlines and ROC controllers at the level of Air Traffic Control, not pushing an image more suited to 1900.

Thanks - I think a lot depends on the union you interact with most. RMT/UNISON or First Division Association/NAHT

My union is much more as you describe, representing "blue collar" workers. As a union rep my time is taken up, basically, in dealing with what are really poor manager behaviours, inability to follow agreed process and in change consultation. The is a desire to try and work for the combined benefit of both sides as one can not exist without the other. The biggest skill is knowing where the deal is and being willing to make that deal.


However, the issue, for me, with moving away from a "political" stance is that risks breaking the link with being able to do something about the more obvious abuses via the levers of power. I agree that the language/rhetoric used by many union leaders is old fashioned, clunky, confrontational and at times not very professional. They really need to learn how to communicate and how modern communication works.

The Institute of Directors or the Law Society or the BMA essentially do the same job as a TU - they lobby parliament for better treatment for thier members and support thier members in thier work.

 

[Flamingo]

Other people are there to help with evacuation over most of mainline UK within minutes, where these is almost continuous radio and mobile coverage, that is not the case in deepest Nepal.

The OBS role is getting £33k, double most cabin crew. An OBS or Driver can get trains halted with one call.

As you say, there needs to be two pilots on a large commercial aircraft in case something happens and it falls out the sky, while a train will just come to a halt protected by the signalling system.

It's a very. very stupid comparison TBH.

Presumably coloured by the fact you are an ex-signaller, you have a touching faith in the signalling system, and are still displaying an ignorance about other roles across the railway that would be funny if it was not so serious. You seem to think that all a guard does in an emergency is talks to the signaller. Most on-board emergencies and problems I have had to deal with, the signaller was the last person I needed to talk to. If I have somebody without a pulse, or twenty football fans smashing the train up, or somebody reporting a sexual assault, I'm afraid delaying a freight train is not really much concern to me.

I have been involved in evacuation exercises - the one I was on in the Severn Tunnel, it was well over an hour between the train stopping and the fire brigade arriving at the train, two before evacuation started (and that was with the "casualties" walking, not being carried.) How long did it take emergency services to reach Greyrig? How long would it have taken emergency services to reach the train at Lavington? It took over thirty minutes to even figure out where the train was! So your claim that someone will be there in minutes is, I'm afraid, total hogwash.

A significant amount of the UK rail network does not run alongside roads, and is quite inaccessable. This may not have been apparent from a signal control centre, but is very obvious when travelling on a train.

Your main objection to the grade (along with some other peoples) seems to be that Train Guards are paid well. About the same as a plumber or electrician...

 

[ComUtoR]

The incident at Kent has been put to bed, it took several railway staff over 10 minute to inform the signaller, contrary to their duties. They had working mobiles and a working GSM radio in their back cab.

The bit that was contrary to their duties was that the Driver didn't apply the TCOC's and even then it may or may not have achieved the same result.

Not only that, the GSMR was only shown to be working after the unit had been recovered and investigated. The MCB had tripped and the training is not to reset the MCB. The Driver acted 100% correctly.

I'm not even sure they had "working" mobiles. I can't remember if that was even reported as a fact. No signal box numbers was reported and other failings about the use of mobile phones which were company related not Driver error.

The GSMR was discussed to death and the conclusion is that nobody is going to go back to the rear cab to check IF the GSMR is working or not. Time is of the essence and the Driver made the correct decision. If anything the posters are correct. The GSMR effectively failed.

The mobile phone I can also address. The rule book states that you can only use it in an emergency and that all forms of communication has been exhausted. That includes SPT's and local phones in the area. Until the rule book specifically states that a mobile can be used either at the Drivers discretion or mandated at as the next option for communication then again, a mobile phone is effectively pointless. It also takes time to get it out your bag, switch it on, wait till it boots, and then your reliant on the available numbers and that you have a signal. In the meantime, the clock is ticking.

Technology here failed and the incident also highlighted the many problems with how technology is implemented on the railway. This is NOT something that has been put to bed and cannot be ignored. By ignoring it and sweeping what happened under the carpet shows lack of understanding and ignoring the reasonable debate as you want.

The tech you love to push and want so much FAILED and clearly has not been implemented correctly. Until those issues are resolved then the railway will NEVER move forward.

BTW everything about the derailment and the problems it highlighted still haven't been addressed. If such an incident happened again it is highly likely that the GSMR will fail again and with no battery backup.

You cannot ignore the failings with the technology. Your argument is based on having perfect technology and the railway actually using it correctly.

 

[FordFocus]

Nonsense to say manning levels on aircraft should set the standard for rail. Aircraft have triplicate safety systems but when they fail they fail unsafe & fall five miles to the ground, on Lockerbie for example. A train that fails just stops, & even in the Severn tunnel or Forth bridge is accessible.

I agree that the manning levels on aircraft shouldn't be applicable to the railway. 2 members of 'cabin crew' for each carriage of a peak time Pendolino

The capacity of a 12 car 700 train is just over 1,000 people with one member of staff, sat in a crumple zone at the front of a train. Is this the manning level we should expect for ever increasing ticket prices?

The GSM-R can fail as discussed in hundreds of posts now and even if your in London it can take hours to deal with stranded trains, see RAIB Kentish Town. https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/safety-incident-between-dock-junction-and-kentish-town

 

[highdyke]

Presumably coloured by the fact you are an ex-signaller, you have a touching faith in the signalling system, and are still displaying an ignorance about other roles across the railway that would be funny if it was not so serious. You seem to think that all a guard does in an emergency is talks to the signaller. Most on-board emergencies and problems I have had to deal with, the signaller was the last person I needed to talk to. If I have somebody without a pulse, or twenty football fans smashing the train up, or somebody reporting a sexual assault, I'm afraid delaying a freight train is not really much concern to me.

I have been involved in evacuation exercises - the one I was on in the Severn Tunnel, it was well over an hour between the train stopping and the fire brigade arriving at the train, two before evacuation started (and that was with the "casualties" walking, not being carried.) How long did it take emergency services to reach Greyrig? How long would it have taken emergency services to reach the train at Lavington? It took over thirty minutes to even figure out where the train was! So your claim that someone will be there in minutes is, I'm afraid, total hogwash.

A significant amount of the UK rail network does not run alongside roads, and is quite inaccessable. This may not have been apparent from a signal control centre, but is very obvious when travelling on a train.

Your main objection to the grade (along with some other peoples) seems to be that Train Guards are paid well. About the same as a plumber or electrician...

A load of other unfounded crap about what I may or may not know, motivations and other rubbish. Nobody has ever claimed anything about things being infallible or perfect, or risk free. Of course guards do more than line protection, been arguing that all along. Although to use Kent and Lavingdon as good practice on guarded trains and why the old ways are the best is laughable.

I'm not going round in circles again. I don't care if you don't agree, I've made my points, it's up to people to decide. They don't have to believe me, the two leading safety bodies have agreed looking at the evidence it's safe and we have 30 years of experience with it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The bit that was contrary to their duties was that the Driver didn't apply the TCOC's and even then it may or may not have achieved the same result.

Not only that, the GSMR was only shown to be working after the unit had been recovered and investigated. The MCB had tripped and the training is not to reset the MCB. The Driver acted 100% correctly.

The guard didn't though did he, with a working radio in the back cab. First duty of train crew is to contact the signaller (or at least TOC control) by fastest/any means.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/rulebooks/GERM8000-master-module Iss 1.pdf Page 122 onward, everyone can go read it and carry on the debate, I'm bored.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/impro...-mobile-user-procedures-ns-gsm-r-ops-0514.pdf

http://www.rssb.co.uk/improving-industry-performance/gsm-r

http://www.rssb.co.uk/industry-news/rssb-research-projects-find-no-increased-safety-risk-from-doo

http://www.transport-network.co.uk/RMT-publishes-DOO-danger-'dossier',-but-regulator-disagrees/12962

 

[Flamingo]

A load of other unfounded crap about what I may or may not know, motivations and other rubbish. Nobody has ever claimed anything about things being infallible or perfect, or risk free. Of course guards do more than line protection, been arguing that all along.

I'm not going round in circles again. I don't care if you don't agree, I've made my points, it's up to people to decide. They don't have to believe me, the two leading safety bodies have agreed looking at the evidence it's safe and we have 30 years of experience with it.

Fine - just back up your arguement that assistance can reach every train (or even every train currently operating DOO) within minutes.

We are going around in circles - you are posting unreferenced, uncited opinion as fact, then spitting your dummy out when challenged.

I have also been involved in professions where research based practice was the way forward. I used to spend quite a lot of time picking major holes it the reports.

 

[ComUtoR]

http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/rulebooks/GERM8000-master-module Iss 1.pdf Page 122 onward, everyone can go read it and carry on the debate, I'm bored.

You do realise that the document issued to Drivers was incorrect. ( http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/rulebooks/GERM8000-traindriver Iss 1.pdf ) The RSSB issued an incorrect document and refused to correct it. (it has since been superseded)

You have also linked an out of date document.

That highlights problems with a digital railway. Mistakes happen and will often go uncorrected. I'm sure anyone is aware of the problems with an incorrect rule book. It also highlights that yes the railway is moving towards digital but they are incompetent at it and use it badly.

Your link to an out of date document also highlights that user error is commonplace in a digital world. It is very easy to say technology is great but when you fail to use it correctly then it becomes more of a hindrance than help. Yes its a better rulebook than we used to have but, as I highlighted earlier up thread, new technology brings new problems.

Again, I laud your desire to push the railway forward as I have the same desire but understand that its years away and needs a much more robust approach than chucking technology at a problem. As someone else pointed out in another thread about technology; its often a solution looking for a problem.

 

[highdyke]

As a driver looking at a green signal, how do you know it's really safe to go?

Maybe it's been cleared with a large vehicle on the crossing. Maybe the tractor driver forgot to phone the signaller, or the the signaller forgot to replace/maintain the signal. Maybe a tech was working, and did something wrong. Maybe there's a line possession and the signaller forgot? Maybe a train is on fire on an adjoining line and nobody has told the signaller, because it's a guarded tain and he was doing something else. Maybe there was a bridge bash, or someone drove round the barriers? Maybe a train has passed a signal at danger and is on collision course with yours? The driver misread the signals because the human brain has trouble instantly counting more than 5 objects in a line, this case signals. On an absolute block line, has the signalman overrode the block controls, as he forgot a train was in section, or the signalman in rear didn't tell him one was on its way?

Humans are pretty fallible too.

You are trusting technology every day, railways are technology. Again looking at the green signal as you round a bend at 100 mph, you are reliant on an interlocking many miles away, the point motors, the cubicles, the cabling and so on. You are relying on correctly working brakes, traction motors, the rails not catastrophically failing, the suspension systems working.

I'd rather rely on a modern communications/signalling system than a person that is maybe physically unfit running on slippy sleepers with explosives, a mile or more, who make have to make random decisions at junctions which direction trains are coming from anyday. Yes, everything else may fail, mobiles, 999 calls, GSM-R, SPTs, the line is axle counters rather than track circuits and there's no guard to help you. Or maybe there is a guard, but he's running in the other direction. Meanwhile the injured passengers are left alone, maybe in a burning train while the crew do this. It's about risk, what system would you rely on most and what are the chances of everything going wrong?

For my money, if it's tech than can deal with things better than the old ways, I'll go with the new. Yes nothing is perfect, but it's all risk in the end. I'd still want humans when they are best of-course.

GSM-R is now up for replacement beyond 2020, what replaces it will be carrying that movement authority right into the cab, indeed it will be on Thameslink, and controlling the train....your new green signal..do you trust it?

I hope so, as a driver or passenger that's all you have got, ultimately.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Humans are pretty fallible too.

You like making this point. But current recruitment of staff into safety critical roles involves psychometric testing to confirm that an applicant has a personality suited both to training and the subsequent rigourous completion of repetitive tasks. It's the old-timers that may be more suspect but they have a certain amount of experience on their side.

As for fitness you have heard of recurrent medicals? Not unusual for traincrew to be removed from post due to reduced mobility or subject to increased frequency of medicals to check on a specific condition.

 

[ComUtoR]

GSM-R will be here long long long beyond 2020. The new core section will go over to ATO and in cab signalling is the future. GSM-R is integral to that system. The data sent to the train is is via GSM-R and other onboard systems. GSM-R is across the network.

I agree with you and I know humans are fallible. I do trust technology but I understand its limitations. I also know from personal experience how bad the railway is implementing it. They couldn't even get the rulebook right ffs.

You are also forgetting that Safety Critical systems are designed to be failsafe and are subject to stricter rules and regs. Take a look at the PIS complaints and you see how poor non safety critical systems are.

Understanding and accepting its limitations is very important. Putting all your eggs in one basket is not the best idea. GSM-R big red button is awesome.. but still failed. Not the first incident either. I personally missed a serious incident (by luck) and the Sig wanted to stop me in an emergency. The STOP message sent to my GSM-R failed and I continued. The Sig had to contact me "old school" to stop my train.

Trust the system, yes, that's my job. But I know its not perfect and will accept that. You seemingly cannot.

I've also had signals go back and missed a collision TWICE ! but I still put my faith in the signal system. (one was Signaller error) the other I have no idea and the Signaller just went silent.

We agree that we need BOTH technology and Staff.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

For my money, if it's tech than can deal with things better than the old ways, I'll go with the new. Yes nothing is perfect, but it's all risk in the end. I'd still want humans when they are best of-course.

GSM-R is now up for replacement beyond 2020, what replaces it will be carrying that movement authority right into the cab, indeed it will be on Thameslink, and controlling the train....your new green signal..do you trust it?

I hope so, as a driver or passenger that's all you have got, ultimately.

I totally agree and have absolutely no issue with modern technology being used to improve safety, but sometimes it's used to save money and cut corners, not to improve safety. That's why GSM-R sets don't typically feature the optional battery backup pack that is available as an option.

If the Kent train had a battery pack backup on the GSM-R radio, and RAIB could have written in their report how brilliant it all was that even with a GSM-R tripping out, it was able to make the necessary emergency call, then we might be thinking a little differently concerning DOO, but as it is, a huge major failure in the design of GSM-R has been highlighted.

We're going round in circles with signaller to train radio communications, I'm really not at all convinced you know how any of this really works, what the major problems are with it, or if you do, you're wilfully ignoring some major problems with GSM-R and are setting great store by new technology which we don't know enough about.

It needs, at the very least, more ruggedised, vibration and shock resistant construction and the battery backup, so it really shouldn't trip out during a derailment and if it does, or the power supply for it is lost, the battery pack allows an emergency call to be made.

GSM-R is an integral part of the ERTMS system.

The presentation of a green signal on in-cab signalling is entirely dependent on the train remaining in contact with the signalling system, if there's a loss of signal, the movement authority expires and the train stops, and everything in the chain stops, either through the movement authority expiring (if they've also lost contact with the signalling system - say a mast hit by lightning) or by the signalling system itself because it knows contact has been lost with one or more trains (maybe the train has been hit by lightning or the antenna damaged).

I can think of a dozen incidents in the last few years which have potential radio issues, from vandalised GSM-R pods up the Welsh Valleys, to bridge parapet failures which could easily have damaged roof antennas.

 

[313103]

No you won't. From your posts you are protected staff,you have been in our industry for years & you are over 60. Compared with private industry our pensions are heavenly & you will soon get your state pension too. So you won't be allowed to be a burden. But with your experience you could go for an OBS job,or even work a catering trolley. Lots of quite old people sell kit kats & coffee on the train. And wise dispatchers are needed in most TOCS.

Yes i have been in the industry longer then someone who commits murder, i am not at an age to take my pension yet as i am under 55, i am in the age bracket where the retirement age is now 67 and not 65 as was.

When gwr send their shiny new trains down where i live and work there will be no need for dispatch staff, obs roles are not even a consideration in South Wales, catering trolley service is outsourced to a private company and are based in either Carmathen 33 miles from where i live or Newport 45 miles.

Whilst dispatchers maybe required elsewhere, i will not be able to move.