Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[JonathanH]

Is DOO(P) and OBS still being implemented in two weeks as planned regardless of the industrial action? Presumably rosters are already worked out for those days? If so, have the additional routes for DOO now been cleared? From previous comments, Shepherds Bush to Milton Keynes, Hurst Green to Uckfield aren't being made DOO, nor is anything using 313s or 171s. How many of the other currently non-DOO routes can switch over on day 1?

 

[Goldfish62]

Most people travel by road?! Not in London they don't.

Incorrect I'm afraid. Rail, Inc the Underground, is heavily outweighed by road based forms of transport. Even buses alone beat rail hands down.

 

[74A]

Is DOO(P) and OBS still being implemented in two weeks as planned regardless of the industrial action? Presumably rosters are already worked out for those days?

The rosters wouldn't have to change for the drivers. Just say DOO on the diagram.

 

[Fincra5]

Is DOO(P) and OBS still being implemented in two weeks as planned regardless of the industrial action? Presumably rosters are already worked out for those days? If so, have the additional routes for DOO now been cleared? From previous comments, Shepherds Bush to Milton Keynes, Hurst Green to Uckfield aren't being made DOO, nor is anything using 313s or 171s. How many of the other currently non-DOO routes can switch over on day 1?

If it were to go ahead in August it would be the Mainline (Vic to Brighton services) and Victoria to London Bridge (via Crystal Palace - for some reason). Both of which are DOO cleared routes already.

The coastways,etc, if ever came to be would be at a later date. (Theres an awful lot to sort out - including poor lighting and cctv issue etc).

 

[Bromley boy]

Incorrect I'm afraid. Rail, Inc the Underground, is heavily outweighed by road based forms of transport. Even buses alone beat rail hands down.

I'm sure that's true, my point was that for most London commuters who use the train, using a car to get to work is simply not an option.

Buses are painfully slow for anything other than short journeys, leaving rail the only sensible option for a commute crossing several zones.

 

[HH]

If it were to go ahead in August it would be the Mainline (Vic to Brighton services) and Victoria to London Bridge (via Crystal Palace - for some reason). Both of which are DOO cleared routes already.

The coastways,etc, if ever came to be would be at a later date. (Theres an awful lot to sort out - including poor lighting and cctv issue etc).

Exactly; which is why the approach taken by GTR from the start of this dispute doesn't make any sense.

I'm given to understand that part of the problem is that GoVia's bid made some fairly heroic assumptions on cost savings; and that none of the bid team are involved in actually running the franchise. I had thought that was a lesson (that the bid team should have a stake in the management of the franchise) which had been learnt by all owning groups by now, but it seems not.

I know other bidders took a different approach, judging the current GTR one as too risky. I know that at least one conducted some lighting surveys, which also informed their approach. According to the ITT if DfT thought the GoVia approach was risky, they should have risk adjusted the bid. I'm guessing that they decided not to, possibly swayed by the additional savings compared to the more cautious approaches, possibly because it played into their current thinking. Whatever the reason is, we can be certain that no DfT heads will roll over it.

 

[bnm]

As I've said previously, high rail fares are a result of the longstanding government policy in the UK to put much of the cost onto fare payers, rather than spreading it around tax payers. Staff costs are a small proportion of the enormous expense of running the railway.

We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether or not that is the correct policy. My point is that blaming staff wages for high rail fares is simply wrong.

Staff costs are 25p of every pound spent on fares.
22p goes back to the network for investment in infrastructure and rolling stock. 26p is spent on maintaining tracks and trains. 11p on fleet leasing. 9p servicing Network Rail debt. 4p on fuel. 3p for TOC profit.

I wouldn't call 25p of every pound spent on fares a small proportion. The blame for high rail fares doesn't lie solely with staffing costs, I agree. But to say it is simply wrong, is er, simply wrong.

Running a rail network is an expensive business. Particularly the model our politicians chose for us back in the mid 1990s. There's no real competition for fare payers money except in a few limited areas. Most fare payers are subject to monopoly provision. Where there has been competition though is in wages. Having multiple operators competing for staff has driven up wages way beyond inflation. Good for the staff, particularly if you subscribe to the idea that wages were suppressed in the nationalised industry. Not good for fare and tax payers though.

Staff costs are a big part of the industry. In no way are they a small proportion. It's right that they, along with all the other aspects of the business, are looked at when trying to identify cost and efficiency savings.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

From previous comments, Shepherds Bush to Milton Keynes, Hurst Green to Uckfield aren't being made DOO, nor is anything using 313s or 171s. How many of the other currently non-DOO routes can switch over on day 1?

Without wanting to raise passions further, why is the WLL/WCML route not suitable for DOO?
It has been comprehensively modernised after all, and has new-ish trains.
Are the 350s unsuitable or something?

 

[74A]

Without wanting to raise passions further, why is the WLL/WCML route not suitable for DOO?
It has been comprehensively modernised after all, and has new-ish trains.
Are the 350s unsuitable or something?

You can run DOO anywhere on the network provided the necessary infrastructure is in place. Now that GSMR radios are on all trains and trains have in cab CCTV to check the doors the only thing that needs changing is the lighting on the platform. The lighting for DOO has to be of a certain brightness.

The line north of London is primarily London Midland (With a few Virgin trains at Watford and Milton Keynes) if GTR where to operate DOO there then they would have to pay for the necessary lighting improvement. As they only run one train an hour the cost of doing so outweighs the savings to be made. Also is was not in the contract so from GTR point of view an unnecessary expense.

 

[DarloRich]

You can run DOO anywhere on the network provided the necessary infrastructure is in place. Now that GSMR radios are on all trains and trains have in cab CCTV to check the doors the only thing that needs changing is the lighting on the platform. The lighting for DOO has to be of a certain brightness.

The line north of London is primarily London Midland (With a few Virgin trains at Watford and Milton Keynes) if GTR where to operate DOO there then they would have to pay for the necessary lighting improvement. As they only run one train an hour the cost of doing so outweighs the savings to be made. Also is was not in the contract so from GTR point of view an unnecessary expense.

however GOVIA run more than one train an hour on that line

 

[SpacePhoenix]

You can run DOO anywhere on the network provided the necessary infrastructure is in place. Now that GSMR radios are on all trains and trains have in cab CCTV to check the doors the only thing that needs changing is the lighting on the platform. The lighting for DOO has to be of a certain brightness.

The line north of London is primarily London Midland (With a few Virgin trains at Watford and Milton Keynes) if GTR where to operate DOO there then they would have to pay for the necessary lighting improvement. As they only run one train an hour the cost of doing so outweighs the savings to be made. Also is was not in the contract so from GTR point of view an unnecessary expense.

Would Virgin and/or LM even allow trains with no guards to operate in their area anyway?

 

[Bromley boy]

Staff costs are 25p of every pound spent on fares.
22p goes back to the network for investment in infrastructure and rolling stock. 26p is spent on maintaining tracks and trains. 11p on fleet leasing. 9p servicing Network Rail debt. 4p on fuel. 3p for TOC profit.

I wouldn't call 25p of every pound spent on fares a small proportion. The blame for high rail fares doesn't lie solely with staffing costs, I agree. But to say it is simply wrong, is er, simply wrong.

Running a rail network is an expensive business. Particularly the model our politicians chose for us back in the mid 1990s. There's no real competition for fare payers money except in a few limited areas. Most fare payers are subject to monopoly provision. Where there has been competition though is in wages. Having multiple operators competing for staff has driven up wages way beyond inflation. Good for the staff, particularly if you subscribe to the idea that wages were suppressed in the nationalised industry. Not good for fare and tax payers though.

Staff costs are a big part of the industry. In no way are they a small proportion. It's right that they, along with all the other aspects of the business, are looked at when trying to identify cost and efficiency savings.

Interestingly I have heard the figure of 20p in the pound bandied around, I suspect the precise figure varies by TOC/location.

Staffing costs are one proportion of the cost (we can discuss whether 20 - 25% is a large proportion), but the way that cost is passed onto fare payers is a political decision, as you note above. I remain convinced the popular perception that high fares are directly caused by high wages is wrong. Staff costs are just one factor.

What irritates me is the perception amongst the media and the public at large which seems to be one of fat cat train drivers and other rail staff getting rich (lest we forget drivers are paid £60k for a 3 day week, right?! ). And seeming to relish any excuse to have a pop at them or better yet sack them!

 

[BRblue]

You can run DOO anywhere on the network provided the necessary infrastructure is in place. Now that GSMR radios are on all trains and trains have in cab CCTV to check the doors the only thing that needs changing is the lighting on the platform. The lighting for DOO has to be of a certain brightness.

The line north of London is primarily London Midland (With a few Virgin trains at Watford and Milton Keynes) if GTR where to operate DOO there then they would have to pay for the necessary lighting improvement. As they only run one train an hour the cost of doing so outweighs the savings to be made. Also is was not in the contract so from GTR point of view an unnecessary expense.

You do realise that GSM-R is not the be all and end all? It does have its limitations and can fail at inopportune moments. The same with CCTV... you make it sound so simplistic when in fact it isn't.

 

[Dave1987]

You can run DOO anywhere on the network provided the necessary infrastructure is in place. Now that GSMR radios are on all trains and trains have in cab CCTV to check the doors the only thing that needs changing is the lighting on the platform. The lighting for DOO has to be of a certain brightness.

The line north of London is primarily London Midland (With a few Virgin trains at Watford and Milton Keynes) if GTR where to operate DOO there then they would have to pay for the necessary lighting improvement. As they only run one train an hour the cost of doing so outweighs the savings to be made. Also is was not in the contract so from GTR point of view an unnecessary expense.

You have forgotten a rather significant and expensive thing actually.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Staff costs are 25p of every pound spent on fares.
22p goes back to the network for investment in infrastructure and rolling stock. 26p is spent on maintaining tracks and trains. 11p on fleet leasing. 9p servicing Network Rail debt. 4p on fuel. 3p for TOC profit.

I wouldn't call 25p of every pound spent on fares a small proportion. The blame for high rail fares doesn't lie solely with staffing costs, I agree. But to say it is simply wrong, is er, simply wrong.

Running a rail network is an expensive business. Particularly the model our politicians chose for us back in the mid 1990s. There's no real competition for fare payers money except in a few limited areas. Most fare payers are subject to monopoly provision. Where there has been competition though is in wages. Having multiple operators competing for staff has driven up wages way beyond inflation. Good for the staff, particularly if you subscribe to the idea that wages were suppressed in the nationalised industry. Not good for fare and tax payers though.

Staff costs are a big part of the industry. In no way are they a small proportion. It's right that they, along with all the other aspects of the business, are looked at when trying to identify cost and efficiency savings.

Actually there is one very big and expensive area that would increase efficiency far more and it's called Network Rail. TOC staffing is actually one of the most efficient parts!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You can run DOO anywhere on the network provided the necessary infrastructure is in place. Now that GSMR radios are on all trains and trains have in cab CCTV to check the doors the only thing that needs changing is the lighting on the platform. The lighting for DOO has to be of a certain brightness.

The line north of London is primarily London Midland (With a few Virgin trains at Watford and Milton Keynes) if GTR where to operate DOO there then they would have to pay for the necessary lighting improvement. As they only run one train an hour the cost of doing so outweighs the savings to be made. Also is was not in the contract so from GTR point of view an unnecessary expense.

It wasn't the Southern aspect I was interested in, more the nature of the route for LM.
The routes north out of St Pancras and King's Cross are DOO, so why is Euston-Northampton (say) not a candidate for DOO?
I would have thought its technology would be at least as advanced* as the MML/ECML.
I can't believe the stations have not had new lighting recently, with all the platform extensions.
Is it just down to LM (Govia) not being interested in DOO?
I'd have thought that might change in the next franchise (unless, as I suggested, 350s are for some reason unsuitable without mods).

* especially now that Bletchley and Watford PSBs have been eliminated

 

[GatwickDepress]

I swear there's the remains of a few DOO monitors extant on the WCML. I wonder whether Network SouthEast had plans to "MML-ise" the local services at some point.

 

[74A]

It wasn't the Southern aspect I was interested in, more the nature of the route for LM.
The routes north out of St Pancras and King's Cross are DOO, so why is Euston-Northampton (say) not a candidate for DOO?
I would have thought its technology would be at least as advanced as the MML/ECML.
I can't believe the stations have not had new lighting recently, with all the platform extensions.
Is it just down to LM (Govia) not being interested in DOO?
I'd have thought that might change in the next franchise (unless, as I suggested, 350s are for some reason unsuitable without mods).

A lot of the current problems are down to privatisation. When a franchise is let it is for a fixed period. Unless specified in a franchise then staff costs are assumed to remain broadly similar. Yes a company could look to bring in DOO but there are significant costs involved and when you are only running the company for a few years the overall benefits mean it is not worth it. One of the reasons the RMT are making such a fuss over GTR is as a warning to other franchises what will happen if they try to go down the same route.

Of course the other problem with franchises is that once a contract has been agreed then it will have to happen. So GTR have to implement DOO as is it in their contract. The only way they could not is if they agree a new contract with the government and I can't see that happening. Similar applies with Northern where DOO is now part of the new franchise.

If BR were still around then we would not be even having this discussion. DOO was agreed with ASLEF and the RMT (NUR as was) in 1984 and BR would just have carried on bringing it in over the network as lines were upgraded. Obvious candidates such as Reading to Basingstoke would have happened years ago.

 

[AlterEgo]

Interestingly I have heard the figure of 20p in the pound bandied around, I suspect the precise figure varies by TOC/location.

Staffing costs are one proportion of the cost (we can discuss whether 20 - 25% is a large proportion), but the way that cost is passed onto fare payers is a political decision, as you note above. I remain convinced the popular perception that high fares are directly caused by high wages is wrong. Staff costs are just one factor.

What irritates me is the perception amongst the media and the public at large which seems to be one of fat cat train drivers and other rail staff getting rich (lest we forget drivers are paid £60k for a 3 day week, right?! ). And seeming to relish any excuse to have a pop at them or better yet sack them!

Staff costs are a significant portion of railway expenditure, as bnm says. McNulty was very critical of the levels of wage drift that have happened on the railway.

There are lots of other factors which make up the fare, but inescapably, staff costs are nearly a quarter of them! Change must happen.

I don't begrudge anyone their wages (and a LinkedIn survey I took recently placed my own civil service wage around 12% higher than the national average for my job description...), but it's important to have a sensible debate without being told we can't discuss staff salaries. It is a significant factor.

 

[XDM]

It wasn't the Southern aspect I was interested in, more the nature of the route for LM.
The routes north out of St Pancras and King's Cross are DOO, so why is Euston-Northampton (say) not a candidate for DOO.

Not only was it a candidate for DOO,but BR introduced DOO. Some of the mirrors were not ideally sited & local ASLEF blacked it. The impasse was resolved when BR & ASLEF agreed an independent arbitrator would decide if it was safe. From now on is gossip. Apparently the arbitrator was a woman college academic. The ASLEF branch sec was a charmer & took her for a sighting cab ride. When it was over she declared DOO unsafe apart from the DC line. The charmer business may be boasting & untrue & she genuinely believed it unfit, but that's what both BR & ASLEF big wigs gossiped. No reason why Euston Northampton can't be DOO now,if cams can be retrofitted to the 350s. They were added successfully & cheaply on the 172 Barking gospel oak units for DOO.

 

[Bromley boy]

Staff costs are a significant portion of railway expenditure, as bnm says. McNulty was very critical of the levels of wage drift that have happened on the railway.

There are lots of other factors which make up the fare, but inescapably, staff costs are nearly a quarter of them! Change must happen.

I don't begrudge anyone their wages (and a LinkedIn survey I took recently placed my own civil service wage around 12% higher than the national average for my job description...), but it's important to have a sensible debate without being told we can't discuss staff salaries. It is a significant factor.

It is right there is a debate about it, and of course it's right that staff deliver value for money. As with any collection of people some rail staff are more conscientious than others, and I agree that all staff would do well to remember they need to be seen to add value. It just seems that rail staff wages figure more highly in peoples' thoughts than other industries.

Perhaps it's just the people I associate with but invariably if I have a couple of rest days in a row, comments like "so that's what my fares are paying for" come up. Perhaps it's because the nature of shift work means I often have time off when people in 9-5 jobs are at work, and they seem to forget that I'll often be at work when they're relaxing down the pub of a Friday night.

 

[Dave1987]

Just so people are aware, I believe 74A's post regarding conditions for a line to be considered for DOO is wrong! From what I'm led to believe the line has to have a 'safe cess' for the entirety of the route.

 

[highdyke]

The staff and profit costs are somewhat hidden, one of the joys of privatisation. For example the 25p is TOC staff, Network rail staff figures are not included, just a generalised NR cost. The actual figures for NR are £1.2 billion [ Source https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Network-rail-short-guide1.pdf ]

Many things on the railway are contracted out, cleaners, catering, rolling stock, accountancy, the various governing bodies, consultants, track and signalling design and infrastructure, equipment manufacturer and so on. You get the picture, but these companies all have wages and profits.

The real staff percentage is probably 50-60%, this was the case in BR days. The very heavily labour intensive steam railway, was 70-80%, I think the GWR was 79% off the top of my head. That said they used to manufacture far more in-house than BR.

 

[74A]

Just so people are aware, I believe 74A's post regarding conditions for a line to be considered for DOO is wrong! From what I'm led to believe the line has to have a 'safe cess' for the entirety of the route.

Do you have any source for that ? I find it hard to believe. What about the tunnels through the Thameslink core. No safe cess there. Also on the underground there is definitely no safe chess on large parts of the route. Also various bridges on many routes have no safe cess either side.

 

[Dave1987]

Do you have any source for that ? I find it hard to believe. What about the tunnels through the Thameslink core. No safe cess there. Also on the underground there is definitely no safe chess on large parts of the route. Also various bridges on many routes have no safe cess either side.

From what I was told during my driver training one of the conditions that have to be met is that a safe cess has to be provided. Why is it so hard to believe? You have a train with circa 1000 people on board with just one member of staff who is the driver. If that train breaks down and the driver is required to walk down the track (leaving the 1000 odd people without any staff onboard!!) and then has a fall because no safe cess is provided, then there is no one close to come looking for them after a reasonable period. And you are clearly showing naivety as far as bridges are concerned as I gather you don't have a PTS. With regards to the underground that isn't the mainline and no doubt there are local operating procedures but I don't know about it so can't comment. But I drive on the mainline so know very well about that.

 

[Taunton]

Staff costs are 25p of every pound spent on fares. 22p goes back to the network for investment in infrastructure and rolling stock. 26p is spent on maintaining tracks and trains. 11p on fleet leasing. 9p servicing Network Rail debt. 4p on fuel. 3p for TOC profit.

In accounting terms these figures are incorrect. There is very little "investment" in infrastructure and rolling stock, much of this is actually what should be described as "repairs and renewals", and added in with the next category of maintenance.

It has been a longstanding poor practice of railway management to term like-for-like replacement as "investment". There are standard accounting approaches for the marginal additional costs at time of renewal, for example a larger fleet, or having air conditioning where the replaced assets did not. However, this accounting approach can also have negatives where there are less features, such as less seats than before, or a lesser overall number of vehicles.

There also seems to be double counting if we are having "investment in rolling stock", and then separately "fleet leasing", which I understand comprises all the rolling stock.

 

[74A]

From what I was told during my driver training one of the conditions that have to be met is that a safe cess has to be provided. Why is it so hard to believe? You have a train with circa 1000 people on board with just one member of staff who is the driver. If that train breaks down and the driver is required to walk down the track (leaving the 1000 odd people without any staff onboard!!) and then has a fall because no safe cess is provided, then there is no one close to come looking for them after a reasonable period.

Like I said places like the thameslink tunnels clearly have no safe cess. So it would not seem to be a requirement. If it was I think we would have heard about it as quite a lot of work would be needed to provide one. I suspect its one of those thing which sound plausible but in reality is not correct.

 

[Philip C]

I'm particularly concerned about the scope for young enthusiasts to come across threads such as this - it is all really rather unpleasant!

Is there any scope for 'Rail UK Forums' to obtain a special price for Anger Management courses?

 

[Dave1987]

Like I said places like the thameslink tunnels clearly have no safe cess. So it would not seem to be a requirement. If it was I think we would have heard about it as quite a lot of work would be needed to provide one. I suspect its one of those thing which sound plausible but in reality is not correct.

The Thameslink tunnels will have their own set of local instructions. It doesn't really matter whether you believe its 'plausible but not correct'. But funnily enough the entire part of the line I drive which is DOO has a safe cess, and the bits that a guard is provided doesn't! That's one hell of a coincidence and would mean my instructor was lying. Considering they have been a driver and instructor for years and years I think I'm minded to believe what they say.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm particularly concerned about the scope for young enthusiasts to come across threads such as this - it is all really rather unpleasant!

Is there any scope for 'Rail UK Forums' to obtain a special price for Anger Management courses?

No better or worse than any other part of the internet.

 

[Fincra5]

Staff costs are a significant portion of railway expenditure, as bnm says. McNulty was very critical of the levels of wage drift that have happened on the railway.

There are lots of other factors which make up the fare, but inescapably, staff costs are nearly a quarter of them! Change must happen.

I don't begrudge anyone their wages (and a LinkedIn survey I took recently placed my own civil service wage around 12% higher than the national average for my job description...), but it's important to have a sensible debate without being told we can't discuss staff salaries. It is a significant factor.

Ok.. so why not keep frontline staff, you know the ones people actually see, and perhaps reduce the amount of management, specifically middle-management who seem to do very little. (especially the PA to the PA of someone!)

If you ask me thats the biggest waste of "staffing costs"!

 

[DarloRich]

Like I said places like the thameslink tunnels clearly have no safe cess. So it would not seem to be a requirement. If it was I think we would have heard about it as quite a lot of work would be needed to provide one. I suspect its one of those thing which sound plausible but in reality is not correct.

there must be a derogation for the tunnels - clearly providing a cess path there is not feasible. Would you not be expected to remain in the train and await rescue rather then get out in those circumstance?