• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,498
Location
Norwich
Firstly a failed train grinds to a halt - if it isn't already stationary - or is that stationery, I can never remember. It doesn't go hurtling down the track.

So Greyrigg was made up. The failed train safely ground to a halt? Or Polmont, the train again, failed, and safely ground to a halt. Or Potters Bar?[/quote]

Secondly there is no risk of being struck from behind by a 186 mph train.

Remind me again of the major cause of death at Great Heck? Or Southall? Even Harrow and Wealdstone.

Just those two scenarios alone tells me the poster doesn't really have a clue.

What, that poster who is a current guard on the national network knows nothing about being a guard. Move along please...

Now, first aid. Person on a train loses their footing on the way back from the toilet and falls over whilst the train clatters over a crossover. Person strikes head, blood everywhere. What does the Guard do? No first aid training, person starts to feel faint and dizzy......

Well, first the guard would make a general PA call on the train for any doctor, nurse, police officer, anyone first aid trained. Then, knowing his next stop wasn't for 25 minutes but knew in 7 he would pass a platform totally suitable to stop and remove the casualty would arrange with the driver and TOC control to stop out of course allowing the person to be removed from the train.

I was once on a train that ground to a rather rapid halt between Ashwell and Royston. Turned out that the driver had collapsed. Fortunately there was an off duty driver on board who drove it to Royston where an ambulance was called (no cell 'phones in those days). If there hadn't been a driver it would have been a bu66er to get someone along to the train. Now, suppose that Guards were authorised to drive a train - their train - to the next station.

That proves absolutely nothing, just you were lucky on that occasion to have a spare driver on board. Had it been a DOO service without the spare driver you would be totally stuck with no realisation the driver was ill. Unlike with a guard where an emergency brake application would immediately trigger a check on what has happened.

The fact is - and it's no use the RMT burying their collective heads in the sand - is that a combination of technology and change has rendered the traditional Guard's job redundant. Sure you still need a Guard over A.B. lines but otherwise you don't. The Guard's job over the years has become one of customer service. There is no mail, no parcels, no livestock. No brake tests on fixed formation trains.

Just wait, just wait until we get a nice big incident on a DOO train with an incapacitated driver and a body count that could have been stopped by a guard. And there are still brake tests done on fixed formations, I'm trained to do them on Mk3 sets.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
7,490
Location
Gomshall, Surrey
So Greyrigg was made up. The failed train safely ground to a halt? Or Polmont, the train again, failed, and safely ground to a halt. Or Potters Bar?



Remind me again of the major cause of death at Great Heck? Or Southall? Even Harrow and Wealdstone.



[/QUOTE]

I think this was meant to refer to a train which has failed in the sense of losing power or similar, and simply coming to a halt, rather than a crashed/hit/derailed one, for which the term 'failed' is a little inadequate perhaps.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,498
Location
Norwich
I think this was meant to refer to a train which has failed in the sense of losing power or similar, and simply coming to a halt, rather than a crashed/hit/derailed one, for which the term 'failed' is a little inadequate perhaps.

Those are not the times a guard will be missed. It is the Great Heck & Ufton Nervet sort of accidents. Ones where the driver is either dead on impact or entirely incapacitated. A DOO service with that is going to be awful. And its will get more and more likely as DOO pushes out into more and more rural locales.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
7,490
Location
Gomshall, Surrey
Those are not the times a guard will be missed. It is the Great Heck & Ufton Nervet sort of accidents. Ones where the driver is either dead on impact or entirely incapacitated. A DOO service with that is going to be awful. And its will get more and more likely as DOO pushes out into more and more rural locales.

I agree, but I think the poster was meaning "failed" in the sense I stated.
 

nom de guerre

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2015
Messages
801
Exactly what it says on the tin. The Signaller can send you or all trains a single STOP message via the radio. Very loud beep and STOP comes up on the GSMR display. Suffice to say you need to stop ASAP.

The GSMR doesn't always receive them. Because, well, technology isn't perfect.

Happy to be corrected, but AFAIA on GSM-R there are only two options in an emergency: initiate a REC (red button) to stop all trains in an area/s, or make an Urgent call (yellow button) to an individual train. Both of these options are calls, not messages (we are required to issue verbal instructions), and AFAIA neither results in a "very loud beep" or the word "STOP" being displayed at your end.

Are you sure you're not thinking of CSR? This had a (much-missed) individual STOP message function which acted exactly as you describe.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,684
Location
LBK
Those are not the times a guard will be missed. It is the Great Heck & Ufton Nervet sort of accidents. Ones where the driver is either dead on impact or entirely incapacitated. A DOO service with that is going to be awful. And its will get more and more likely as DOO pushes out into more and more rural locales.

Funnily enough, the RAIB/HSE reports into both incidents entirely omit the guard's actions following both derailments.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,562
Location
UK
Happy to be corrected, but AFAIA on GSM-R there are only two options in an emergency: initiate a REC (red button) to stop all trains in an area/s, or make an Urgent call (yellow button) to an individual train.

Red and Yellow buttons are on the GSMR terminal Drivers end. They are initiated by the Driver. I couldn't tell you what the Signaller options are but I'm sure they can initiate an ALL STOP.

Both of these options are calls, not messages (we are required to issue verbal instructions), and AFAIA neither results in a "very loud beep" or the word "STOP" being displayed at your end.



http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/improving-industry-performance/2015-gsm-r-cab-mobile-user-procedures-ns-gsm-r-ops-0514.pdf said:
Pg43 / 7.1.3

All cab radio users in the emergency group call area will hear an alarm and see a warning on the display, even if the radio has not yet been registered.

When you receive a railway emergency group call, the cab radio will let you know with an audible alarm message

‘Emergency, Emergency, Emergency’

and the message ‘STOP EMERGENCY’ will be displayed.


Are you sure you're not thinking of CSR? This had a (much-missed) individual STOP message function which acted exactly as you describe.

From our perspective not much changed in the way a STOP message comes up. Certainly much improved and even better that we can get trains stopped in an emergency.

Using an Urgent point to point call will not stop the individual train as even in the documentation it doesn't say to stop the train; just to respond to the call.

Myself and Carriageline had a good thread discussion about GSMR and forgive me but I cannot recall if he stated that an individual train can be stopped in an emergency.

In the situation I had the Signaller sent me a CONTACT SIGNALLER message and asked me why I failed to stop in response to the emergency stop. A rather shaky conversation (from both sides) ensued and basically I didn't get any STOP on the radio and I was oblivious to what was going on.
 
Last edited:

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,275
I know that and after 41 years I'm well aware of how it all works.
Firstly a failed train grinds to a halt - if it isn't already stationary - or is that stationery, I can never remember. It doesn't go hurtling down the track.
Secondly there is no risk of being struck from behind by a 186 mph train.
Just those two scenarios alone tells me the poster doesn't really have a clue.
Now, first aid. Person on a train loses their footing on the way back from the toilet and falls over whilst the train clatters over a crossover. Person strikes head, blood everywhere. What does the Guard do? No first aid training, person starts to feel faint and dizzy......
I was once on a train that ground to a rather rapid halt between Ashwell and Royston. Turned out that the driver had collapsed. Fortunately there was an off duty driver on board who drove it to Royston where an ambulance was called (no cell 'phones in those days). If there hadn't been a driver it would have been a bu66er to get someone along to the train. Now, suppose that Guards were authorised to drive a train - their train - to the next station.
The fact is - and it's no use the RMT burying their collective heads in the sand - is that a combination of technology and change has rendered the traditional Guard's job redundant. Sure you still need a Guard over A.B. lines but otherwise you don't. The Guard's job over the years has become one of customer service. There is no mail, no parcels, no livestock. No brake tests on fixed formation trains.
The public aren't behind this strike and without public support they're lost. As fast as various people stick their heads over the parapet and talk about safety of the train and it's passengers the opposition will fire back with Bedford to Brighton, London to Kings Lynn and Peterborough to London.

Did I once say struck from behind? Trains operate in two directions, normally on tracks that are close together, a derailment is a conceivable failure which can cause the other line to be infringed on. I do know how the system works.

Although that did happen at Clapham. The initial accident was that the train in front was struck from behind.
 

Heartland

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2016
Messages
66
Location
Stechford, Birmingham
The worrying aspect of the Southern decision to reduce ticket office hours and reduce train operation to Driver Only Operation is that the franchise operators are bound by their investors to ensure profit. It has been reported that the arrangement with the DfT that all fare revenue passes to the DfT and Southern receive a block payment for the duration of the franchise. It seems reasonable that Southern will reduce overheads to maximise revenue. It is useful to talk about safety and all the other factors mentioned in this thread, but profit appears to be at the heart of this issue.
 

grid56126

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2011
Messages
295
Have you a source for that as that makes no sense.

Southern are short on guards so can't exactly release them for route learning. Further more if this grand scheme idea of making guards sign a new OBS contract come the end of August there won't be a requirement for route knowledge as the services become DOO. Why spend the money on route learning?

There IS a need for route learning and will be for some time. Selhurst guards will still work as "guards" from Clapham Junction to / from Milton Keynes and London Bridge to / from Uckfield. All class 313's will be guard worked as will all class 171s to from Brighton / Ashford and everything West of Chichester / anything that that ventures into Wessex territory. Class 442s to / from Eastbourne will also retain guards.

I may have missed an odd bit off?
 

nom de guerre

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2015
Messages
801
I couldn't tell you what the Signaller options are but I'm sure they can initiate an ALL STOP.

The signaller's options are as I mentioned in my previous post: initiate a REC (to stop all trains in an area/s), or make an Urgent call to an individual train. Both are calls - not messages - requiring us to adhere to voice protocols.

There is no emergency stop message function (although many of us would like one), and no function that would result in you receiving a "very loud beep" and seeing the word "STOP" displayed (the audible and visual warnings associated with REC and Urgent calls are different).

Instead, your description sounds like the individual stop message function on the previous cab radio system, CSR, which did result in a loud beep(ing) and the word STOP being displayed (see 6.2: http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/RS516%20Iss%201.pdf). Hence my query.


Using an Urgent point to point call will not stop the individual train as even in the documentation it doesn't say to stop the train; just to respond to the call.

It can be used to stop an individual train in an emergency, when accompanied by the appropriate verbal instruction.

The call connects automatically after a couple of seconds, so you can hear our instructions even without answering. We tell you to stop your train immediately and to confirm that you are stopping.



In the situation I had the Signaller sent me a CONTACT SIGNALLER message and asked me why I failed to stop in response to the emergency stop. A rather shaky conversation (from both sides) ensued and basically I didn't get any STOP on the radio and I was oblivious to what was going on.

Bet that got the adrenaline pumping! Difficult to comment without knowing the details; if a train appeared to be failing to respond to a REC, the natural next option would be an Urgent call - but perhaps this was tried and also didn't work.
 

infobleep

On Moderation
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
13,453
A train that fails doesn't just stop. It could get thrown violently into the air, get bent out of shape have other vehicles from the train or another train piled above or below it. It could have high voltage cables wrapped around it, or have a bodyshell that is live (not know of it happening, but it is possible) due to being wedged on a live rail and not touching a running rail. It's a sitting duck for being hit at speeds of up to 125 MPH or 186 MPH (on HS1) for 5 minutes or so after it comes to rest.

And a point of order. Clipper maid of the seas didn't fail. It was blown up in mid air and fell over Lockerbie and a lot of the surrounding area. Most planes that fail are actually flying fairly low at the time as incidents of actual mechanical failure or pilot error tend to be on take off or landing, not miles up in the sky.

And Grayrigg, just how accessible was it? I believe it took some time for the emergency services to arrive because of how inaccessible it was.

Also the signalling can fail unsafe too. Just one stray cable can cause a signal that should be at danger to display a proceed aspect, as happened at Clapham Junction, or a reset of an axle counter at the wrong moment can cause a signal to display a proceed aspect when a train is within the section (as might have happened in the Severn Tunnel)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm sure they don't back the disruption, however empathise with the staff taking industrial action and have decide the blame lies not with the strikers, but with the inept management, who were also responsible for the crap service that was running prior to the strikes.
I was on a train that breaker suddenly. The driver apologised. I think he saw a signal aspect he hadn't been expecting, based on previous aspects seen. I think we then preceeded slower for a time after that. Understandable as who knows if any others were incorrect.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
Southern guards are being used by the RMT high ups.

Sadly there is very much this feeling amongst some Southern conductors right now, but given concern for the safety of the railway and the outright numbers of onboard staff of any description within a few years, there is also a feeling that this is still a perfectly valid dispute.

RMT have just been told by their lawyers that telling their members not to do new route learning is illegal, so they have just withdrawn the instruction. If they had not,their guards could have been liable to civil costs & unchallengable sacking.

Have you a source for that as that makes no sense.

Southern are short on guards so can't exactly release them for route learning. Further more if this grand scheme idea of making guards sign a new OBS contract come the end of August there won't be a requirement for route knowledge as the services become DOO. Why spend the money on route learning?

Source is the RMT website. With the changes being made some depots are gaining new routes. Selhurst I believe it says on the RMT site.

XDM is, on this occasion, basically correct. Some depots are operating with rather better proportions of productive conductors than others. Some, but not all, Selhurst conductors are learning at least one additional and (for them) entirely new route. This involves further trains which are definitely not able to run DOO for the time being.

A second trained member of staff who isn't first aid trained and isn't allowed to drive the train in an emergency. C'mon RMT you're going to have to do better than that to get the passengers on your side.

Well, Guards do have enough first aid training to put a bandage on a head. It's not rocket science. If there was a Neurosurgeon or A&E consultant on board, it is pretty-much all they could do in that scenario.

New Southern conductor entrants have not been given first aid training for quite some time. This is not to say that they have not been trained in other ways in dealing with ill passenger scenarios; indeed this would have been something every recently-qualified conductor would have discussed at length in their training.

A driver collapsing scenario is not endangering the train to a large extent - it will delay it, but that's a different scenario. That's what the various safety systems in the cab are there to mitigate, and the decision was made many years ago that one Driver was all that was needed.

Oh, I dunno about that! I've dealt with instances of unresponsive drivers before, and I dread to think what would happen on a rammed summer evening peak express from Victoria if there was nobody to reassure passengers and react immediately to find out what's going on. Delays = danger with the level of overcrowding on the GTR network. I know signallers can make PA announcements and alert the MOM, but their ability to actually see and get a feel for a train's loading, what's going on in the cabs, and create an appropriate response, is very much reliant on either a conductor or the off-chance of appropriate staff in the vicinity who are trained to respond. I know which I'd rather if that meant it prevented people from pulling the egresses and wandering off down the lineside.

I agree that some of the traditional Guard roles have gone (as some Drivers roles), but the basic role of "Guarding the Passengers (from themselves)" is still there, and still required. I do agree, this message is not getting across as well as it could, through a combination of misleading statements from Management, and inerta from the travelling public.

Most of a Guards duties are low-key, and for this reason, are not recognised - indeed, on a lot of trains, are not needed. However, once they are not there, then they will be missed.

In a strange sort of way, OBS roles would still be able to guard passengers from themselves just as much as a conductor would; the bad thing is that they would probably not, however, be able to guard them from incidents external to their own behaviour. An OBS (while they exist) working on targeted trains or a conductor on a selection of vast 12-coach behemoths rattling down the mainline with 2mins between stops will, in my opinion, have roughly the same chance of finding and dealing with disruptive behaviour. Neither of the two would be a bad thing. But a conductor would also be able to prevent something kicking off by explaining and offering reassurance in the event of a severe delay due to a fatality, or a train fault, or a loss of signalling; an OBS may not be trained to recognise or deal with any of these, and may not be able to do anything more than offer vague support which won't wash. Let alone dealing with the technical side of any incident ranging from an accidental division through to a door fault.

'Chef du Train' literally translates to Head of the Train, which sounds more like Train Manager to me

Pretty much! AIUI.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,562
Location
UK
Instead, your description sounds like the individual stop message function on the previous cab radio system, CSR, which did result in a loud beep(ing) and the word STOP being displayed

Did you not read the links I provided ?

STOP EMERGENCY is displayed as a message on my GSMR and we get an audible alarm

With a REC it initiates a call and sends the message it does both. The documentation proves it and shows you a pretty picture of the message we receive.

I would say that this is more a confusion in what is sent and what is received. You initiate a call (Video) but we get both a call and a message. The official documentation even refers to it as a message. I do understand that it may be different in the way you would send us a WAIT or CONTACT SIGNALLER message but from our perspective seeing STOP EMERGENCY displayed on our GSMR is a message.

I can't find a video of a Drivers view of what happens but the documentation shows the message.


It can be used to stop an individual train in an emergency, when accompanied by the appropriate verbal instruction.

If you needed to stop a train in an emergency then why would you use an urgent function rather than the emergency one ?

The call connects automatically after a couple of seconds, so you can hear our instructions even without answering. We tell you to stop your train immediately and to confirm that you are stopping.

I'm aware that is what happens and I still wouldn't stop my train in an emergency (using brake 4) I'd stop normally.

Bet that got the adrenaline pumping! Difficult to comment without knowing the details; if a train appeared to be failing to respond to a REC, the natural next option would be an Urgent call - but perhaps this was tried and also didn't work.

My perspective was an initially annoyed Signaller and then one of great concern. The GSMR effectively failed. The Signaller couldn't contact me and couldn't stop my train.
 

infobleep

On Moderation
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
13,453
In a strange sort of way, OBS roles would still be able to guard passengers from themselves just as much as a conductor would; the bad thing is that they would probably not, however, be able to guard them from incidents external to their own behaviour. An OBS (while they exist) working on targeted trains or a conductor on a selection of vast 12-coach behemoths rattling down the mainline with 2mins between stops will, in my opinion, have roughly the same chance of finding and dealing with disruptive behaviour. Neither of the two would be a bad thing. But a conductor would also be able to prevent something kicking off by explaining and offering reassurance in the event of a severe delay due to a fatality, or a train fault, or a loss of signalling; an OBS may not be trained to recognise or deal with any of these, and may not be able to do anything more than offer vague support which won't wash. Let alone dealing with the technical side of any incident ranging from an accidental division through to a door fault.

Some guards already don't tell passengers what us going on during delays so in that respect at least they might as well be an OBS. Not that I'm saying we need to get rid of guards because I value their uses during safety critical incidents.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

nom de guerre

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2015
Messages
801
I would say that this is more a confusion in what is sent and what is received. You initiate a call (Video) but we get both a call and a message.

Yes, confusion on my part. We don't really get to see how a REC or Urgent call is displayed in the cab (just - sometimes - how it sounds). Thanks for the clarification.


If you needed to stop a train in an emergency then why would you use an urgent function rather than the emergency one ?

Because: a) a REC stops everything in the area, and sometimes this isn't necessary; and b) we are briefed that an Urgent call plus 'stop immediately' instruction has the status of an individual emergency call.

Eg one of our workstations includes a mostly single-line branch which, for the majority of the day, is only ever occupied by one train at a time. If I needed to get one of these trains stopped at the branch 'end', I might use an Urgent call rather than a REC to avoid inconveniencing completely unaffected trains on the connecting main line. It would depend on the situation at the time.

OTOH, I recently received an Urgent call from a driver, reporting a Person Hit By Train on a double-track, electrified main line. To me, that is a cast-iron REC.


I'm aware that is what happens and I still wouldn't stop my train in an emergency (using brake 4) I'd stop normally.

Even if the signaller has informed you of an emergency ahead, and instructed you to "stop your train immediately"?
 

BRblue

Member
Joined
13 May 2015
Messages
271
Location
Sunny Sussex...
Even if the signaller has informed you of an emergency ahead, and instructed you to "stop your train immediately"?

I'm with you on this one nom de guerre, although I stand to be corrected.
It goes against what I have been taught... A REC (group call) call is used to bring all trains to a stop in a given area immediately and an urgent call is to bring a specific train to a stop immediately.
But I will double check when I get in later.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,684
Location
LBK
Can anyone explain what all this has to do with drivers closing the doors?

The RMT have until quite recently failed to steer the public debate away from this.

Unfortunately, they've still failed to realise their priorities and the public's priorities are different. They really ought to be making points about accessible travel, which is their only hook now.

OBS will reduce costs and improve reliability (because trains can run without the second staffer on board). Passengers will sympathise with the former to some extent, but they'll be actively keen for the latter to happen.

The crux of the issue is all about safety of course. But Joe Public doesn't understand railways. We've had railwaymen in this thread debate what GSMR does exactly, amongst a number of other safety issues. The public aren't going to understand the safety aspect and it's for this reason that any industrial action campaign is doomed to failure. But then, industrial action is all the RMT know. With no Labour government anywhere near power, and in fact in total disarray, it has no weapons.

They'd be better off spending money in assisting current guards into new careers, a bit like the armed forces do. I'll be shot by some for saying that.
 

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
835
Yes, confusion on my part. We don't really get to see how a REC or Urgent call is displayed in the cab (just - sometimes - how it sounds). Thanks for the clarification.




Because: a) a REC stops everything in the area, and sometimes this isn't necessary; and b) we are briefed that an Urgent call plus 'stop immediately' instruction has the status of an individual emergency call.

Eg one of our workstations includes a mostly single-line branch which, for the majority of the day, is only ever occupied by one train at a time. If I needed to get one of these trains stopped at the branch 'end', I might use an Urgent call rather than a REC to avoid inconveniencing completely unaffected trains on the connecting main line. It would depend on the situation at the time.

OTOH, I recently received an Urgent call from a driver, reporting a Person Hit By Train on a double-track, electrified main line. To me, that is a cast-iron REC.




Even if the signaller has informed you of an emergency ahead, and instructed you to "stop your train immediately"?

The Strathclyde Trial ran through the scenarios of having a targeted emergency stop to an individual train but it was decided that the signaller REC areas and/ or urgent call to the individual train with voice commands was sufficient. I witnessed a signaller at Yoker IECC use the urgent call with voice stop command for a train that SPADed on the way to Knightswood junction (rear end collison potential). It worked very effectively.

I agree that your incoming urgent call should have been an incoming REC
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm aware that is what happens and I still wouldn't stop my train in an emergency (using brake 4) I'd stop normally.

A signaller instructing you to bring your train to an emergency stop is a normal stop?
 

SPADTrap

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2012
Messages
2,355
Yes, confusion on my part. We don't really get to see how a REC or Urgent call is displayed in the cab (just - sometimes - how it sounds). Thanks for the clarification.




Because: a) a REC stops everything in the area, and sometimes this isn't necessary; and b) we are briefed that an Urgent call plus 'stop immediately' instruction has the status of an individual emergency call.

Eg one of our workstations includes a mostly single-line branch which, for the majority of the day, is only ever occupied by one train at a time. If I needed to get one of these trains stopped at the branch 'end', I might use an Urgent call rather than a REC to avoid inconveniencing completely unaffected trains on the connecting main line. It would depend on the situation at the time.

OTOH, I recently received an Urgent call from a driver, reporting a Person Hit By Train on a double-track, electrified main line. To me, that is a cast-iron REC.




Even if the signaller has informed you of an emergency ahead, and instructed you to "stop your train immediately"?

We have to acknowledge your STOP 'message' that appears as a result of the REC with the 'ST' button on the radio head.

If you want to stop me make a REC because as soon as I hear the 'doo-doo-doo-doo EMERGENCY EMERGENCY' my brakes are in EMG, call me urgently and I'll answer first, you'll have to talk to me and I'll have to acknowledge and in that time what could happen? I'd rather that not be on our download!

I'd stop if you called me urgently and told me to, but you'd be answering why you didn't make a REC when your intentions were to stop me anyway. All you'd do is delay that action.
 
Last edited:

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
The RMT have until quite recently failed to steer the public debate away from this.

Unfortunately, they've still failed to realise their priorities and the public's priorities are different. They really ought to be making points about accessible travel, which is their only hook now.

OBS will reduce costs and improve reliability (because trains can run without the second staffer on board). Passengers will sympathise with the former to some extent, but they'll be actively keen for the latter to happen.

The crux of the issue is all about safety of course. But Joe Public doesn't understand railways. We've had railwaymen in this thread debate what GSMR does exactly, amongst a number of other safety issues. The public aren't going to understand the safety aspect and it's for this reason that any industrial action campaign is doomed to failure. But then, industrial action is all the RMT know. With no Labour government anywhere near power, and in fact in total disarray, it has no weapons.

They'd be better off spending money in assisting current guards into new careers, a bit like the armed forces do. I'll be shot by some for saying that.

Prey tell how costs will be reduced? How will reliability be improved? And yes this whole thing has been about safety.

Considering the Govt are peddling the whole 'no one is losing their job (yet)' why would the union be trying to get guards into new careers? This isn't about money.
 
Last edited:

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Can we move the GSMR functionality discussion to a new thread please? It's not really to do with the thread topic.
 

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
835
Not back to the signaller to confirm I'm now at a stand?


Correct, it was decided that too many messages would distract the signaller when dealing with an incident
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Can we move the GSMR functionality discussion to a new thread please? It's not really to do with the thread topic.

It has to do with DOO as one of the requirements of DOO is to have a secure direct comms link to the signaller in emergency situations and GSM-R can also be used to protect the line should an incident happen
 

SPADTrap

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2012
Messages
2,355
Can we move the GSMR functionality discussion to a new thread please? It's not really to do with the thread topic.

You do realise that GSMR is a requirement for DOO?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Correct, it was decided that too many messages would distract the signaller when dealing with an incident

That's my new thing learned for today then! Is that everywhere or in busy areas?
 

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
835
That's my new thing learned for today then! Is that everywhere or in busy areas?

Everywhere, my understanding is that the 'ST' button will be used to acknowledge broadcasts in a non verbal way eg berth triggered broadcast for low adhesion in the area
 

SPADTrap

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2012
Messages
2,355
Everywhere, my understanding is that the 'ST' button will be used to acknowledge broadcasts in a non verbal way eg berth triggered broadcast for low adhesion in the area

I was aware of that but our brief forgot to mention that they'd changed the button entirely :lol:
 

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,704
My sympathy is with the customers who won't receive the service they have paid for, who will have their lives inconvenienced and will miss out on valuable family time as a result of this unacceptable politically motivated strike.

I also have sympathy for the businesses who will suffer loss of productivity, disruption and are forced to let their customers down as a result of this activity.

I am one of the affected passengers however my sympathy is also with the Southern staff and indeed management who have had this government forced on them by the DfT. It would be interesting to know whether it was a politicians idea or has come from staff with in the DfT.

Its going to take years for industrial relations at Southern to recover.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top