Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[cjmillsnun]

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.

The senior management knew exactly what they were bidding for.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I know of at least 6 people who initially had sympathy for the guards, but who consider a 5 day strike is just a p*take that has made them to switch support to Southern.

I don't know a single person who has sympathy with this particular strike.

Including me. And I hate Southern

I do, and I am a passenger. However problem is as it is a DfT caused dispute its all going nowhere.

 

[Phil.]

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?

Grayrigg, Potters Bar and Polmont weren't train failures, they were crashes. Do you not understand the term "failed train"?



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

Great Heck = train struck a vehicle on the line. Southall = Driver ran through a red light. Harrow and Wealdstone - driver ran through a red light. Your connection with DOO in relation to these accidents is?

Do you not understand the difference between a failed train and a train that has crashed?


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

If someone is a serving Guard and is suggesting that a failed train "hurtles along the track" or that there is a possibility of a stationary train being struck from behind by a train travelling at up to 186 mph he/she needs to start looking seriously at how railways work and perhaps define what the term "failed train" means.



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.



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.

And then?



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.[/QUOTE]

We've been listening and waiting for a nice big incident for the last thirty years on a DOO train and it hasn't happened yet.

Your replies simply prove the point that I'm trying to make.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

I agree it's about safety, of course, at least from a railwayman's point of view.

It's entirely about money from the government's perspective. The DfT, along with the RSSB, state that DOO is a "safe method of working".

DOO will reduce costs by quite simply not having to pay a second member of staff. It will increase reliability because there is no second member of staff to go sick.

I agree that trains are *safer* with guards on them. I am happy to travel on DOO trains.

That said: Don't kid yourself - guards are on the way out on suburban and metro services. Tories will be running the country for at least ten years.

You and thousands others might not be able to see it but many people can I'm afraid. It's not good news.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

The DfT is a ministerial department of the government so the minister takes responsibility. Doesn't matter who thought of it, it's been a gradual process for over 30 years, the introduction of DOO.

 

[Phil.]

Is that 41 years working on trains, or travelling on them?

In my 41 years I've been - amongst others - a Shunter, Goods/passenger Guard, conductor guard, station supervisor, TOPS clerk, enquiry and reservation clerk, T.T.I. (precursor of revenue protection), operations instructor (shunters, guards, signalmen) guard's inspector, area inspector (precursor to MOM) assistant station manager, station manager, relief manager, platform operations controller. There are several others but I think that I've made my point in that I really do know what I'm talking about.

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.

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.

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.

It's more from a p155 poor communication from the RMT who made the usual union mistake in harping on about how much the company and it's management were earning/being paid. The public aren't interested in that, all they want to know is why the fuss about taking away a member of staff that other trains and TOCs can manage without is being made. I haven't mentioned that the entire LUL network is run DOO. Richmond to Barking isn't a short hop and neither is Epping to Ealing Broadway.

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.

Personally, I think that if Guards agreed to work for minimum wage, this desire to remove staff from trains would not be happening - it is cost-led (backed up by McNulty), and how many posts on this thread are indirectly objecting to our wages?

You ain't gonna see a wage drop for present staff. What will happen is that the guards will be deployed as whatever retaining their rate but new entrants to the whatever will be paid at whatever rate.

 

[AlterEgo]

Its going to take years for industrial relations at Southern to recover.

OBS will be gone next franchise too, I'd wager.

 

[JamesTT]

Would a FOI request for a full unredacted copy of the franchise agreement be granted?

 

[AlterEgo]

Would a FOI request for a full unredacted copy of the franchise agreement be granted?

No. It's redacted because it's commercially sensitive, a legitimate "get out" in the FOI Act.

I'd be sceptical that the public interest test would outweigh this, but there's only one way to find out...

 

[JamesTT]

No. It's redacted because it's commercially sensitive, a legitimate "get out" in the FOI Act.

I'd be sceptical that the public interest test would outweigh this, but there's only one way to find out...

Maybe an email to an MP of a Southern constituency?

 

[AlterEgo]

Maybe an email to an MP of a Southern constituency?

Well I was thinking of someone making the FOI request themselves. The RMT probably did it on day one.

Nearly all Southern constituencies are Tory, except Brighton (which is Green, don't bother) and a couple of others.

A Tory MP is hardly likely to FOI in effect their own government.

 

[JamesTT]

Well I was thinking of someone making the FOI request themselves. The RMT probably did it on day one.

Nearly all Southern constituencies are Tory, except Brighton (which is Green, don't bother) and a couple of others.

A Tory MP is hardly likely to FOI in effect their own government.

He is not my MP but what about Chaka Imuna?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry if name spelt wrong

 

[ComUtoR]

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

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

Am I being told to stop immediately or make an emergency stop ? There is a difference from my perspective. Even the documentation I posted states to only respond to the urgent call if safe to do so. If it was an emergency then every second counts. By the time the call connects, you state your message, "this is ...." my unit is still moving. If I'm approaching a station then I may even decide to stop at the station rather than make a full emergency stop. If instructed to then absolutely I would but if you want to stop me in an emergency then you should really be using the emergency stop.

Most of the time if the Sig wants me to stop, I get brought down to a Red with a CONTACT SIGNALLER on the GSMR

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.

No worries, we both learn a little along the way.

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.

Again, it comes down to perspective. Our briefing is that if you guys want us to stop in an emergency then REC. Why would you make a voice call to stop us in an emergency ? You no longer need to. That's how the old CSR way worked. Big Red Button is much much better. Not only that. The clarity is nowhere near as promised and the calls can come through garbled or unclear. There is also an issue where not all calls are getting through to the Drivers.

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.

What that appears to me is that an operational decision is being made over one of absolute safety. We have the same trouble. Drivers are afraid to hit the big red glowy thing because of the disruption it causes. In an emergency, the emergency system is not being used. Doesn't that defeat the object of having a simple solution to stop everything ? The big red button takes the decision out our hands. See an emergency, stop everything.

@Dave et. al. This to me highlights the many problems with how technology is implemented and how there is too much of an insular nature of how its briefed and used. The policy and procedures between Driver and Signaller differ greatly. I'm also with SPAD on the ST button. We have been told that it acknowledges the berth triggered message but still acknowledges you have brought your train to a stand. The link I provided also states we need to acknowledge the the emergency stop using the ST button and also states the existing use still remains.

GSMR isn't reliable enough. My trip down this evening had it drop out 3/4 times. I do support the use of technology but crikey do I know the limitations of it.

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.

There was an incident where the Driver made an REC in this situation. The call is public broadcast so had obvious implications. It was decided that the REC should be terminated and then the Driver spoken to individually. There is a document setting out that procedure somewhere. It's the same situation with your branch line example too. Does the Driver need to stop all trains or does he make the urgent call and ask for lines blocked, current isolation* etc ?

Now that we have two options it is interesting to see what people say needs the REC and what needs the Urgent. Personally I say. If you want to stop a train then big red every time. And again, in the link I provided it also reitterates the point that REC should be used.

 

[Robertj21a]

Am I being told to stop immediately or make an emergency stop ? There is a difference from my perspective. Even the documentation I posted states to only respond to the urgent call if safe to do so. If it was an emergency then every second counts. By the time the call connects, you state your message, "this is ...." my unit is still moving. If I'm approaching a station then I may even decide to stop at the station rather than make a full emergency stop. If instructed to then absolutely I would but if you want to stop me in an emergency then you should really be using the emergency stop.

Most of the time if the Sig wants me to stop, I get brought down to a Red with a CONTACT SIGNALLER on the GSMR



No worries, we both learn a little along the way.



Again, it comes down to perspective. Our briefing is that if you guys want us to stop in an emergency then REC. Why would you make a voice call to stop us in an emergency ? You no longer need to. That's how the old CSR way worked. Big Red Button is much much better. Not only that. The clarity is nowhere near as promised and the calls can come through garbled or unclear. There is also an issue where not all calls are getting through to the Drivers.



What that appears to me is that an operational decision is being made over one of absolute safety. We have the same trouble. Drivers are afraid to hit the big red glowy thing because of the disruption it causes. In an emergency, the emergency system is not being used. Doesn't that defeat the object of having a simple solution to stop everything ? The big red button takes the decision out our hands. See an emergency, stop everything.

@Dave et. al. This to me highlights the many problems with how technology is implemented and how there is too much of an insular nature of how its briefed and used. The policy and procedures between Driver and Signaller differ greatly. I'm also with SPAD on the ST button. We have been told that it acknowledges the berth triggered message but still acknowledges you have brought your train to a stand. The link I provided also states we need to acknowledge the the emergency stop using the ST button and also states the existing use still remains.

GSMR isn't reliable enough. My trip down this evening had it drop out 3/4 times. I do support the use of technology but crikey do I know the limitations of it.



There was an incident where the Driver made an REC in this situation. The call is public broadcast so had obvious implications. It was decided that the REC should be terminated and then the Driver spoken to individually. There is a document setting out that procedure somewhere. It's the same situation with your branch line example too. Does the Driver need to stop all trains or does he make the urgent call and ask for lines blocked, current isolation* etc ?

Now that we have two options it is interesting to see what people say needs the REC and what needs the Urgent. Personally I say. If you want to stop a train then big red every time. And again, in the link I provided it also reitterates the point that REC should be used.

To me, this is full of interesting information from people heavily involved every day. It does, however, also raise a question over some differing procedures and whether it might help [everyone] if there was better clarity and understanding of safety issues/procedures across the whole industry.

 

[BRblue]

Am I being told to stop immediately or make an emergency stop ? There is a difference from my perspective. Even the documentation I posted states to only respond to the urgent call if safe to do so. If it was an emergency then every second counts. By the time the call connects, you state your message, "this is ...." my unit is still moving. If I'm approaching a station then I may even decide to stop at the station rather than make a full emergency stop. If instructed to then absolutely I would but if you want to stop me in an emergency then you should really be using the emergency stop.

Most of the time if the Sig wants me to stop, I get brought down to a Red with a CONTACT SIGNALLER on the GSMR



No worries, we both learn a little along the way.



Again, it comes down to perspective. Our briefing is that if you guys want us to stop in an emergency then REC. Why would you make a voice call to stop us in an emergency ? You no longer need to. That's how the old CSR way worked. Big Red Button is much much better. Not only that. The clarity is nowhere near as promised and the calls can come through garbled or unclear. There is also an issue where not all calls are getting through to the Drivers.



What that appears to me is that an operational decision is being made over one of absolute safety. We have the same trouble. Drivers are afraid to hit the big red glowy thing because of the disruption it causes. In an emergency, the emergency system is not being used. Doesn't that defeat the object of having a simple solution to stop everything ? The big red button takes the decision out our hands. See an emergency, stop everything.

@Dave et. al. This to me highlights the many problems with how technology is implemented and how there is too much of an insular nature of how its briefed and used. The policy and procedures between Driver and Signaller differ greatly. I'm also with SPAD on the ST button. We have been told that it acknowledges the berth triggered message but still acknowledges you have brought your train to a stand. The link I provided also states we need to acknowledge the the emergency stop using the ST button and also states the existing use still remains.

GSMR isn't reliable enough. My trip down this evening had it drop out 3/4 times. I do support the use of technology but crikey do I know the limitations of it.



There was an incident where the Driver made an REC in this situation. The call is public broadcast so had obvious implications. It was decided that the REC should be terminated and then the Driver spoken to individually. There is a document setting out that procedure somewhere. It's the same situation with your branch line example too. Does the Driver need to stop all trains or does he make the urgent call and ask for lines blocked, current isolation* etc ?

Now that we have two options it is interesting to see what people say needs the REC and what needs the Urgent. Personally I say. If you want to stop a train then big red every time. And again, in the link I provided it also reitterates the point that REC should be used.

You make some very good points there and it does indeed highlight some of the problems that exist regarding the way both drivers and signallers are educated re GSM-R.
Perhaps we should have joint briefings or go back to the old system of signallers having a cab ride and drivers visiting the box to get a clearer understanding?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To me, this is full of interesting information from people heavily involved every day. It does, however, also raise a question over some differing procedures and whether it might help [everyone] if there was better clarity and understanding of safety issues/procedures across the whole industry.

You would of expected the rulebook to give the clarity and understanding needed...
I think we'll leave that right there. :roll:

 

[AlterEgo]

He is not my MP but what about Chaka Imuna?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry if name spelt wrong

I don't understand - what are you asking the MP to do?

Anyone can submit a FOI request. You don't need an MP to do it.

 

[HH]

Would a FOI request for a full unredacted copy of the franchise agreement be granted?

What has been redacted that you want to see?

With regard to the Franchise, the ITT specified more DOO; it did not specify Go Ahead's approach. I know that others bid a less confrontational approach, e.g. less DOO and over a longer period, to reduce the amount of industrial action.

Another point; although DOO has been going on for some years, there has been a definite shift in the wind in more recent times. Some might think, given that this has been concurrent with the appoint of Wilko, and given his Croydon rant, that the reason for this sea change in approach was down to the aforesaid Wilko. Some might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[SPADTrap]

You make some very good points there and it does indeed highlight some of the problems that exist regarding the way both drivers and signallers are educated re GSM-R.
Perhaps we should have joint briefings or go back to the old system of signallers having a cab ride and drivers visiting the box to get a clearer understanding?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You would of expected the rulebook to give the clarity and understanding needed...
I think we'll leave that right there. :roll:

Definitely. I think signallers should get a visit to our simulators to see this in action from our end, you can make and receive RECs all day there! And for drivers a trip to the signaller simulator to see the same. I've seen the sim in Liverpool Street box but not in action.

 

[313103]

You ain't gonna see a wage drop for present staff. What will happen is that the guards will be deployed as whatever retaining their rate but new entrants to the whatever will be paid at whatever rate.

No what you are going to see is Staff being offered a some money to leave the industry or certainly the company they currently work for, when the company reach the magic number they think will be enough for the those that stay, they will then offer other them roles often made for displaced Guards like this OBS nonsense, the only thing a union can do in this position is to request that the sum of money for those leaving is adequate and that those staying retain their former salary. Otherwise the company wouldn't pursue getting rid of the Guard. The made up jobs will have degraded terms & conditions, in the hope that those who go in these grades just leave, and when they leave they dont replace them and the job/role disappears. That is how they save money.

We really are living in the digital age, where the ticket office is closed, where there is no one on the train except the driver, except on rare occasions and virtual imagery staff dotted around stations to make the appearance that there are loads of people around.

Now a bit of scaremongering, the world population is getting bigger every minute of every day, more people are being born then are dying, the world is automating almost everything, all these people need work, but as we are more or less fully automated there is not enough work to go round, governments are tightening the purse strings, so no money for those unemployed, world then descends into chaos and people will do anything to survive so criminality will steadily rise until suppression is imposed by said governments, war breaks out and we all know what happens then.

You think i have been on the sauce today, i cant because i am at work later, but dont think that is not an unrealistic scenario, it is very real, might not happen in the little time i have left on this planet, but the threat is very real.

Anyway i digress, from what i have read on this thread the population want DOO trains, they want closed ticket offices, they want reduced or no staffing levels. Well that is exactly where we are going and that is exactly what they will get.

 

[Chrisgr31]

What has been redacted that you want to see?

With regard to the Franchise, the ITT specified more DOO; it did not specify Go Ahead's approach. I know that others bid a less confrontational approach, e.g. less DOO and over a longer period, to reduce the amount of industrial action.

Another point; although DOO has been going on for some years, there has been a definite shift in the wind in more recent times. Some might think, given that this has been concurrent with the appoint of Wilko, and given his Croydon rant, that the reason for this sea change in approach was down to the aforesaid Wilko. Some might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Thanks, so in theory Southern could back down a bit in order to compromise and reduce the current upset.

Presumably though the DOO parts had no real impact on pricing of the bid as its a management contract?

 

[Carlisle]

Another point; although DOO has been going on for some years, there has been a definite shift in the wind in more recent times. Some might think, given that this has been concurrent with the appoint of Wilko, and given his Croydon rant, that the reason for this sea change in approach was down to the aforesaid Wilko. Some might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Possibly but a very similar dispute has also blown up in Scotland, where Wilko has no powers and probably very little influence

 

[Chrisgr31]

You think i have been on the sauce today, i cant because i am at work later, but dont think that is not an unrealistic scenario, it is very real, might not happen in the little time i have left on this planet, but the threat is very real.

I think broadly you are correct, and I think the referendum vote was in a way a protest vote about the way we are going.

Many companies are reducing staff, making the staff that remain work harder, or moving work off-shore to locations where it is cheaper. At the same time we are encouraging more students to go to University as those with degrees earn more. This may have been true historically but with the increase in efficiency etc is there not a danger that the jobs for those with degrees don't exist?

I suspect its one reason that many passengers do support the guards in that they have seen constant cuts in their own workforce and have realised that less staff is not always better. They appreciate that companies need spare capacity etc and they are just fed up with a constant need to cut cost, making existing staff work harder and increasing profit.

The reality is that we cannot keep cutting staff everywhere as ultimately we will end up with no work for people to actually do!

 

[AlterEgo]

Possibly but a very similar dispute has also blown up in Scotland, where Wilko has no powers and probably very little influence

How very true.

 

[Chrisgr31]

With the new 5 day strike which we all probably accept that most guards cannot afford to be out all week. However presumably they could all be out on day 1 and after that random numbers could be out, if it was say 25% off each day that would mean they all had 2 days off which they might be able to afford?

Presumably the disruption for Southern would also be maximised as they would not know who was turning up each day, so would have to schedule the basic service operated on previous days. They would end up with plenty of guards sitting around doing nothing being paid?

 

[AlterEgo]

I suspect its one reason that many passengers do support the guards...

Define "support".

Passengers largely blame GTR for the dispute, but that isn't the same as "supporting the guards". Frankly passengers don't care if the guard is there or not, something I evidenced upthread with NPS scores. I commute into work on SWT, the line is fully guarded, and I would place the number of times I see or hear the guard do anything other than announce the Tube service at less than 10% of the time. (Almost everyone commuting from Woking can work a smartphone to find that info out, btw...)

 

[74A]

With the new 5 day strike which we all probably accept that most guards cannot afford to be out all week. However presumably they could all be out on day 1 and after that random numbers could be out, if it was say 25% off each day that would mean they all had 2 days off which they might be able to afford?

Presumably the disruption for Southern would also be maximised as they would not know who was turning up each day, so would have to schedule the basic service operated on previous days. They would end up with plenty of guards sitting around doing nothing being paid?

I doubt it. Last time the RMT tried to make strikes from midday to midday the next day Southern took 2 days pay even if the Guards was at work for one of those days. I imagine they will do the same this time and say if you are striking then you will lose 5 days pay.

 

[HH]

Thanks, so in theory Southern could back down a bit in order to compromise and reduce the current upset.

Presumably though the DOO parts had no real impact on pricing of the bid as its a management contract?

IR is entirely within GTR's remit.

DOO will have an impact on the price of the bid; how much depends on the plan. More importantly what GTR can do depends on what franchise commitments GoVia made.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Possibly but a very similar dispute has also blown up in Scotland, where Wilko has no powers and probably very little influence

On Southern it has been GTR who've behaved unreasonably from the get go. I know less about the ScotRail dispute, but it appears that RMT have been making the running there.

 

[74A]

Thanks, so in theory Southern could back down a bit in order to compromise and reduce the current upset.

I don't see how. The RMT are opposed to ANY extension of DOO. The statements of RMT seeking negotiations is pretty pointless as RMT don't want to negotiate on the core point.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

It came from the McNulty report (ie from consultants, some of them railway professionals) .
The report was commissioned by Labour (Andrew Adonis) but delivered under the Coalition government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/realising-the-potential-of-gb-rail
The paradox was (is) that despite a massive increase in rail passenger numbers, the unit cost of transporting them (ie productivity/efficiency) had risen, not fallen, as you would expect.
Staff costs were a key factor in the increase.
More DOO was recommended as a means of increasing productivity/reducing cost so that more trains could run.
Although it is generally dismissed as "political", the DfT position is that investment in railway expansion needs to come with increased efficiency (both NR and TOCs).
Hence the Northern franchise was let with the constraint that DOO was introduced during its term. GTR has a similar contract for Southern.
The alternative is less investment/fewer new trains etc.

 

[ComUtoR]

But the DfT stated at the select committee that they wanted to increase staffing levels.

 

[AlterEgo]

But the DfT stated at the select committee that they wanted to increase staffing levels.

"levels", not cost...