Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Carlisle]

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.

like experts many dismissed for scaremongering in the EU referendum campaign, the mjority of rail staff in recent times have only known growth,therefore probably believe that whilst various governments might on occasion consider the idea of severe cuts , few think they would ultimately be carried out unless we experience a hugely catastrophic recession , way beyond anything anyone's yet forecast

 

[Dave1987]

"levels", not cost...

Race to the bottom on wages then, reduce responsibility of as many staff as possible. Staff who lose safety critical status are not crucial for operations so have no bargaining power with wage rise negotiations. The old saying 'pay peanuts, get monkeys' is very much true. You start having a race to the bottom with wages and you will stop attracting the quality people you do currently and the railway will become a joke. Decent wages are attracting highly talented people to the industry.

 

[AlterEgo]

Race to the bottom on wages then, reduce responsibility of as many staff as possible. Staff who lose safety critical status are not crucial for operations so have no bargaining power with wage rise negotiations. The old saying 'pay peanuts, get monkeys' is very much true. You start having a race to the bottom with wages and you will stop attracting the quality people you do currently and the railway will become a joke. Decent wages are attracting highly talented people to the industry.

They are indeed, the same as the civil service, which is where I work (and guess, what? Subject to cuts too).

It isn't that there is a race to the bottom with wages, it's fundamentally that some safety critical jobs won't need doing in the future. The railway needs more customer facing staff, but it's not a job creation scheme, nor is it an exercise in paying the best possible wages.

I said upthread I saw all this coming a few years back and decided to bail on the railway as a career, and get skills in an expanding industry instead. I'm sure that comes across as "easy for you to say", but it's better to hitch a lift on the bandwagon than to be crushed beneath its wheels.

 

[Dave1987]

They are indeed, the same as the civil service, which is where I work (and guess, what? Subject to cuts too).

It isn't that there is a race to the bottom with wages, it's fundamentally that some safety critical jobs won't need doing in the future. The railway needs more customer facing staff, but it's not a job creation scheme, nor is it an exercise in paying the best possible wages.

I said upthread I saw all this coming a few years back and decided to bail on the railway as a career, and get skills in an expanding industry instead. I'm sure that comes across as "easy for you to say", but it's better to hitch a lift on the bandwagon than to be crushed beneath its wheels.

Look I'm in a position where I'm not worried about my job or my wages as I'm in a grade that is paid extremely well and is not in any threat anytime soon. But that doesn't make me any less concerned the way it's going and I firmly believe this is a test case for Wilkinson and the DFT, and whether he can break the unions which seems to be his ultimate goal (a bloke who on around 250k a year!!). Even though he professed to the Transport select committee that he respects the unions :roll:

 

[AlterEgo]

Look I'm in a position where I'm not worried about my job or my wages as I'm in a grade that is paid extremely well and is not in any threat anytime soon. But that doesn't make me any less concerned the way it's going and I firmly believe this is a test case for Wilkinson and the DFT, and whether he can break the unions which seems to be his ultimate goal (a bloke who on around 250k a year!!). Even though he professed to the Transport select committee that he respects the unions :roll:

Wilkinson probably does respect the unions - he looks a bit like an old boxer to me. I strongly disapprove of union busting (in fact I left Virgin some years ago in a dispute over their union busting of the TSSA, that cost them a lot of money). Nonetheless, the RMT and ASLEF have been opponents to change for far too long and frankly I'm pleased someone might actually use some muscle to push them back.

Interesting that you and other posters have brought up Wilko's wages. We do all get paid what we're worth in the end.

 

[Dave1987]

Wilkinson probably does respect the unions - he looks a bit like an old boxer to me. I strongly disapprove of union busting (in fact I left Virgin some years ago in a dispute over their union busting of the TSSA, that cost them a lot of money). Nonetheless, the RMT and ASLEF have been opponents to change for far too long and frankly I'm pleased someone might actually use some muscle to push them back.

Interesting that you and other posters have brought up Wilko's wages. We do all get paid what we're worth in the end.

If you were still in the industry you would realise what you just said is a load of old bull! ASLEF are receptive of change when they are consulted on it and they deem it to be safe and not putting loads of extra workload on drivers in a day and age where drivers are scrutinised heavily. I have seen changes accepted by the union but of course it never makes the news as unions and companies agreeing isn't what people want to read about.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you were still in the industry you would realise what you just said is a load of old bull! ASLEF are receptive of change when they are consulted on it and they deem it to be safe and not putting loads of extra workload on drivers in a day and age where drivers are scrutinised heavily. I have seen changes accepted by the union but of course it never makes the news as unions and companies agreeing isn't what people want to read about.

It jars strongly with my personal experience of ASLEF. My dad was a branch secretary on the Tube and still gets the magazine, which I read.

ASLEF are a union, so they don't like change that involves de-skilling drivers or giving them extra responsibility, unless the money is right. (Nothing wrong with that btw, they're a union - and always be in the union wherever you work!)

 

[nom de guerre]

Am I being told to stop immediately or make an emergency stop ? There is a difference from my perspective.

In this case, an emergency stop. (Obviously, not all Urgent calls will be for emergency purposes and the vast majority won't be).

Urgent call + signaller notifying you of emergency + instruction to stop immediately = individual emergency stop. According to our briefings.

Even the documentation I posted states to only respond to the urgent call if safe to do so.

In an emergency, we don't have to wait for you to respond. As soon as the call connects, we can start issuing the instruction to stop. The only verbal response required from you is to confirm that you are stopping.

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.

We're being briefed slightly differently, then - which is slightly concerning (if not surprising :roll.

Re CSR, you must be remembering a different system to me. In an emergency, we would use one of two emergency stop text message functions (see 6.2 and 6.3). Quick, easy and no verbal instructions required. Yes, it was possible to make an emergency general call, but I've never heard of a signaller doing so in preference to the text message options (if used at all, it tended to be for broadcasting information following a general stop text message). Why would you?

The lack of a comparable individual emergency stop text message function on GSM-R is a glaring omission, IMO. I'd be fascinated to hear why the Strathclyde Trial deemed it unnecessary.

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.

It's more nuanced than that. Our grade hasn't received any criticism for using RECs so we're not afraid to employ them in the way that some drivers - sadly - might be. Neither are we worried about causing delays - it's a given following an emergency, and TDA just lump all the minutes into the incident TIN. But there may be safety concerns regarding other trains: if it's a baking hot day, do I want several crowded main line trains potentially marooned in a red zone area with no air con for an hour, when the emergency only directly affects a branch line service on a different route, several miles away?

As for the emergency system not being used, I can only repeat: we have been briefed that an Urgent call plus appropriate verbal instruction has the status of an individual emergency stop. For us, the distinction isn't 'emergency or non-emergency call'; but 'what type of emergency call'?.

The link I provided also states we need to acknowledge the the emergency stop using the ST button

I had no idea that you are required to do this following a REC. As 68000 says, we don't receive them!

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 ?

Interestingly, this is something that has filtered through to us - or at least to my place. Our Boss has asked us to deal with sensitive inbound RECs in exactly this way: by closing down the REC and speaking to the affected driver individually. We have also had to take this approach on a couple of occasions when an inbound REC hasn't worked properly (ie we can speak to all drivers in the area except for the one who actually initiated the call).

But there is a clear difference between a REC which then transitions to an Urgent call, and using Urgent right from the beginning. IMO for a Person Hit By Train on a double track, electrified main line, there is no debate whatsoever - the driver should be hitting the red button. In my case, another running line was affected and some other trains were involved; using Urgent merely resulted in wasted time while we dealt with the various other parties who should already have known what was going on. Luckily I had a shift manager and colleagues to chip in, but at a single-manned box the unnecessary increase in workload could be a major pain.

 

[Dave1987]

It jars strongly with my personal experience of ASLEF. My dad was a branch secretary on the Tube and still gets the magazine, which I read.

ASLEF are a union, so they don't like change that involves de-skilling drivers or giving them extra responsibility, unless the money is right. (Nothing wrong with that btw, they're a union - and always be in the union wherever you work!)

Ah you're basing you opinion on what you see in the ASLEF journal and not what is happening at a local level. ASLEF at a local and national level are worlds apart. National level it's a political machine, local level it does what it's meant to do.

 

[Carlisle]

ASLEF at a local and national level are worlds apart. National level it's a political machine, local level it does what it's meant to do.

But wasn't the main point of the recent dispute about GX 12 car DOO an attempt to implement an ASLEF national policy of no further extension of DOO anywhere, rather than any particular local issue

 

[Dave1987]

But wasn't the main point of the recent dispute about GX 12 car DOO an attempt to implement an ASLEF national policy of no further extension of DOO anywhere, rather than any particular local issue

They had a local agreement that any more than 10 coaches would have a guard. The company clearly decided they didn't like that agreement so went against it, so why shouldn't the union be able to get rid of local agreements they don't like? Brings into question whether local agreements are worth the paper they are written on.

 

[AlterEgo]

They had a local agreement that any more than 10 coaches would have a guard. The company clearly decided they didn't like that agreement so went against it, so why shouldn't the union be able to get rid of local agreements they don't like? Brings into question whether local agreements are worth the paper they are written on.

But that agreement was based on the national rule of no extension of DOO, right?

 

[Dave1987]

But that agreement was based on the national rule of no extension of DOO, right?

I don't know when that agreement was signed off by both the company and the union but it certainly wasn't new. You seem to be missing the whole point here though. This could set a precedent if local agreements are allowed to be just ignored as and when it suits. Most TOCs seem to have a pretty decent relations with the union, and I'm starting to believe this is merely a test case for the government.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't know when that agreement was signed off by both the company and the union but it certainly wasn't new. You seem to be missing the whole point here though. This could set a precedent if local agreements are allowed to be just ignored as and when it suits. Most TOCs seem to have a pretty decent relations with the union, and I'm starting to believe this is merely a test case for the government.

I think it's a test case for the government too.

 

[swt_passenger]

They had a local agreement that any more than 10 coaches would have a guard.

Earlier in the thread wasn't it reported that there was no such agreement in place.

Edited to add, it was a GatEx thread I remembered, so that decision was about Gatwick Express 12 car operation.

 

[Chrisgr31]

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.

Thanks for the link. The report states in 2.3.5 that the difference in savings over the study period between the UK and other countries studied is train utilisation. What I cant find is any reference to the train utilisation figures between TOCs, routes etc. After all the Southern peak services must have an exceptionally high train utilisation figure with the number of passengers carried, but how far does the off-peak service affect this on average and how does it compare to other TOCs?

If Southern have a high train utilisation figure then reducing staff costs (which in theory wont go down with these changes), is not going to have a great impact on subsidy etc anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Earlier in the thread wasn't it reported that there was no such agreement in place.

Or possibly in the view of the courts the agreement didn't exist or did not say what some thought it said.

 

[PakRail]

Victoria to Horsham waiting an ambulance at Horley
unconscious/unresponsive person onboard.

Thank the lord there was a conductor on board who was able to call for the ambulance and liaise with the platform staff.

 

[JamesTT]

Victoria to Horsham waiting an ambulance at Horley
unconscious/unresponsive person onboard.

Thank the lord there was a conductor on board who was able to call for the ambulance and liaise with the platform staff.

Sorry but won't an OBS be able to do that as well?

 

[Dave1987]

Earlier in the thread wasn't it reported that there was no such agreement in place.

Edited to add, it was a GatEx thread I remembered, so that decision was about Gatwick Express 12 car operation.

From what I'm lead to believe the agreement was in place but worded in a way that it could be easily wriggled out of on a technicality. Still sets a precedent though! There needs to be a healthy respect and working relationship between the TOC and the union because then things get sorted. The government seem intent on destroying unions.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sorry but won't an OBS be able to do that as well?

Wouldn't a passenger, too?

 

[Chrisgr31]

Sorry but won't an OBS be able to do that as well?

They will as long as there is one one board which is not guaranteed
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wouldn't a passenger, too?

They could but its possible they pay the emergency cord first causing the train to halt between stations. The driver then would need to reset the train before continuing.

The guard/OBS would be able to know where they are due to stop, and call the emergency services and liaise with the driver without the train coming to an unscheduled halt first.

What we dont know is at what point the person was found and the ambulance called

 

[PakRail]

Wouldn't a passenger, too?

Yes but the guard has the benefit of not only being able to call for an ambulance he can make an announcement on the train for any doctors and nurses. Also if there are delays and alterations he will know what time and on what platform the train will arrive and have the station and numbers for control on his hpone.

Something the average customer would not have access to ordinarily.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't believe the passcomm automatically applies the train brakes on a 377.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes but the guard has the benefit of not only being able to call for an ambulance he can make an announcement on the train for any doctors and nurses. Also if there are delays and alterations he will know what time and on what platform the train will arrive and have the station and numbers for control on his hpone.

Something the average customer would not have access to ordinarily.

Exactly the kind of situation where having a second member of staff who actually has a clue what they are doing operationally is a god send for a driver. The whole point is there won't necessarily be an OBS on every train. They have specifically stated they want to be able to run without one.

 

[PakRail]

Exactly the kind of situation where having a second member of staff who actually has a clue what they are doing operationally is a god send for a driver. The whole point is there won't necessarily be an OBS on every train. They have specifically stated they want to be able to run without one.

Add this on top of the fact that GTR Thameslink have already started testing their class 700 trains in the Thameslink core to be controlled remotely.

Imagine a scenario where the driver has no control over the train and no 2nd member of staff with knowledge on board. Customers will be paying more for a less safer service. Remotely controlled trains may work on the Underground, but that is a far smaller network when compared to the National Rail which has its own unique challenges.

We need more skilled staff not less and so do our customers.

 

[tsr]

I don't believe the passcomm automatically applies the train brakes on a 377.

It will after a short delay, unless the driver overrides it. The same applies for a 171, which IIRC is the stock with which Chrisgr31 is most familiar; the difference is that the in-cab warning noise for the passcom or egress on a 171 is very startling (brown underwear moment) for the crew and often results in the override opportunity being missed whilst the crew realise what's going on and then check what the exact type of issue is.

If the driver missed the passcom override on a 12 coach Electrostar and then had to deal with an ill passenger, this could cause rather a lot of problems for everyone. I've dealt with passcoms on moving trains at Horley in times past; at that point on a journey, a Southbound train is likely to have a fairly even number of passengers in all coaches, and you may need to walk a fair distance to find what the problem is. Minimum delay for a conductor will be 2-3mins at the station, for a driver...

 

[XDM]

Add this on top of the fact that GTR Thameslink have already started testing their class 700 trains in the Thameslink core to be controlled remotely.

Imagine a scenario where the driver has no control over the train



Yes,pure imagination. Drivers will be able to stop the train whenever they want.

 

[HH]

Yes,pure imagination. Drivers will be able to stop the train whenever they want.

Only if they want to face disciplinary action. Possibly you mean "drivers will be able to stop the train if required".

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

Thanks for the link. The report states in 2.3.5 that the difference in savings over the study period between the UK and other countries studied is train utilisation. What I cant find is any reference to the train utilisation figures between TOCs, routes etc. After all the Southern peak services must have an exceptionally high train utilisation figure with the number of passengers carried, but how far does the off-peak service affect this on average and how does it compare to other TOCs?

If Southern have a high train utilisation figure then reducing staff costs (which in theory wont go down with these changes), is not going to have a great impact on subsidy etc anyway.

You (and probably McNulty) appear to have some misunderstandings here:

Any service where there is a considerable difference between Peak and Off-Peak demand is going to have worse train utilisation than one that doesn't. Given the preponderance of city (esp London) commuter services in the UK, we won't have as good a utilisation as (say) Switzerland, where demand is more even (presuming other things are equal).

Basically the report is merely highlighting the UK's dependence on rail to get workers to work! That is, wrong measure = wrong conclusion.

So, what does DOO have to do with the false god of utilisation? Well, precisely the fact that trains can run without an OBS, whereas they can't without a Guard. This is actually the thing that particularly exercises DfT.

Other than this, the only effect train utilisation will have on staff cost is that of you get greater utilisation then you will need more staff (more drivers at the very least).

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Add this on top of the fact that GTR Thameslink have already started testing their class 700 trains in the Thameslink core to be controlled remotely.

Is this for real? Who is the remote operator and under what circumstances would a 700 be driven/moved remotely?

 

[PakRail]

Is this for real? Who is the remote operator and under what circumstances would a 700 be driven/moved remotely?

This means the train will be able to drive itself with the driver being there to supervise it. Similar to the way a plane has a auto-pilot feature.

You may think I am high on some illegal substance but this is already in use on some Underground lines and in Europe. It is currently under testing on simulators but this is the opening phase which if successful would lead onto testing in the core itself.

The class 700s were designed to no longer require dispatch staff however the dwell time was found to be too long in testing and thus for the moment dispatch staff are safe.

Again I have many posts deleted due to people thinking I am chatting a load of "bollocks" earlier. One of those was about the possibility of RMT balloting all of its station staff which is now a reality.

As has previously been discussed in this forum, in this digital age more jobs are being simplified and handed over to technology. The logical next step is driverless trains, we already have plans for driverless cars, and it is not stretch of the imagination that this could be being planned sooner rather than later...