Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Juniper Driver]

Sorry didn't mean to sidetrack.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Perhaps we should leave it to the experts, like the RSSB?

Ah yes, that self same RSSB that has Charles Horton as a director? Conflict of interest?

 

[northwichcat]

The thing that happens more often is a stop short, doors released. And again there are new techniques coming in which have reduced this.

And there's been two instances in my area I'm aware of where a guard has thought the rear unit has been locked out-of-use but it hasn't been. In both cases that resulted in a couple of being people boarding the rear unit without the guard seeing who have then alighted at stations where the rear unit has been off the back of the platform. Fortunately, in both cases the passengers who boarded the wrong unit used common sense and went to the front door of the rear unit and didn't try to alight where there was no platform.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ah yes, that self same RSSB that has Charles Horton as a director? Conflict of interest?

Jeez. Change the record!

 

[northwichcat]

I work both DOO and guard services. For me all this stuff about guards and the doors is diverting attention away from a full safety critical guards real value.

In my opinion really the unions have focused too much on the doors. There's a big difference between removing guards from the trains and removing door duties from the guard's job role if all the other duties and training for guards remains the same. If a large tree branch falls on the line and it's a two person job to remove it and there's two members of rail staff with a track pass* on board the train then you have a solution regardless of who releases and closes the doors.

* I'm not sure if that's the right term.

 

[craigybagel]

In my opinion really the unions have focused too much on the doors. There's a big difference between removing guards from the trains and removing door duties from the guard's job role if all the other duties and training for guards remains the same. If a large tree branch falls on the line and it's a two person job to remove it and there's two members of rail staff with a track pass* on board the train then you have a solution regardless of who releases and closes the doors.

* I'm not sure if that's the right term.

PTS is the term you're looking for. And whilst I do agree that RMT are focusing too much on doors, it's GTR themselves who are saying that nothing else will change, just who presses the buttons, which we all know it's rubbish.

The problem is there is no guarantee that the OBS will have PTS, I've seen no suggestion that they will, and even if they do, theres no guarantee they'll actually be on a train. So you ARE left with just the driver dealing with your tree branch.

 

[Dave1987]

PTS is the term you're looking for. And whilst I do agree that RMT are focusing too much on doors, it's GTR themselves who are saying that nothing else will change, just who presses the buttons, which we all know it's rubbish.

The problem is there is no guarantee that the OBS will have PTS, I've seen no suggestion that they will, and even if they do, theres no guarantee they'll actually be on a train. So you ARE left with just the driver dealing with your tree branch.

Indeed I think the RMT should be focused on ensuring there are two members of safety critical staff (rules, traction and routes) on every train just like they have got on ScotRail. There are so many examples of incidents where a guard could have made all the difference.

 

[Bromley boy]

I take it this is fitted on DOO trains like the Southern 455's?

Not on the 465/6s or the 376s. 376s don't have SDO either.

375s have SDO but won't prevent a wrong side door release.

 

[Robertj21a]

Indeed I think the RMT should be focused on ensuring there are two members of safety critical staff (rules, traction and routes) on every train just like they have got on ScotRail. There are so many examples of incidents where a guard could have made all the difference.

So, you mean broadly what everyone else has been saying for the past 300+ pages......?

 

[Bromley boy]

So, you mean broadly what everyone else has been saying for the past 300+ pages......?

Perhaps we should rephrase the question and ask "do people believe there should be two train crew members aboard".

Many would answer "yes", in which case the answer is stick with guards, or have nobody.

Train managers/OBMs will be gone within a couple of years.

 

[tsr]

Wow, lots of things flying about on here which need clarification. I'll try to condense it down a bit...

OBS staff will initially be primarily working on 377s on the Southern network. They will be trained on minor (passenger facilities) troubleshooting, but nothing safety critical. The difference in this matter is that a conductor will be aware of various ways of dealing with (or working with a driver to deal with) safety critical faults and failures. An OBS will not be able to help. In fact, a lot of their training is dependent on variable shadowing experience.

Let us take an example scenario. A couple of times recently we have seen the contrast on the Southern network between DOO and conductor-worked trains having tail lamp problems. On a long train of 8-12 coaches, or even on a shorter but busy train, the driver may have a job getting through a DOO train to check the situation in the rear, and that's once they've told the signaller what's going on, and secured the cab. They would not be able to ask an OBS to deal with these sorts of problems because they cannot be held responsible for the safety of the train. On the other hand, a conductor will be located nearer the problem to check and rectify the situation (even if under the driver's instructions), permitted to do so, and will not have to take significant time to speak to the signaller and secure a cab. This is just one example of the three-level difference between driver/driver+OBS/driver+conductor and goes to show one of many scenarios where only a conductor would definitely be a significant improvement.

Regarding doors: OBS staff will generally not be taking over from conductors on any routes where conductors presently release the doors. This is only done on Class 171 and 455 stock on the Southern network, and the routes where this is required will retain conductors, often because the technology is not in place to allow DOO (either on the trains or stations, sometimes both). On 377s, which again will be where you will initially find an OBS on the Southern network, the driver already releases the doors. The conductor has NO way at all of interacting with this process anyway, other than either a) telling the driver not to, eg. if they notice something unsafe on arrival or b) using emergency egresses if the doors simply won't open (it happens).

Aside from technical failures or local scenarios (eg. on TL at St Pancras) requiring emergency releases from the driver's MITRAC system, the door release process on 377s is usually pretty painless. There may be a slight delay of a second or two at certain locations but that's about it. This delay is generally down to what we call "Correct Side Door Enabling" which, as the name suggests, is an automatic system to enable a train to open doors only on the correct side at high-risk locations for a wrong-side door release - a common example would be the off-side platforms at Balham. This system is also able to protect from the doors being released at a red signal not located at a station (a slightly less common operating incident). It will not prevent the wrong selection of doors being released if the train stops at the wrong stop mark, and I am not 100% sure if this can practically be done with Electrostars. Someone else will know. On routes with 171s and 455s where the conductors release doors, there is no such system. This is why a conductor is required to step from the train onto the platform, check that all the doors they wish to release are on the platform (ensuring doors are deselected (171s) or locked out (455s) as necessary) and then perform the release. Both drivers (on 377s etc.) and conductors should use the "STAR" method: Stop [train], Think [whether that is the right place], Assess [if the right doors are selected and the area is safe], Release. A "risk commentary" is also encouraged in high-risk situations so that the member of crew talks themselves through the procedure. It is only a set of techniques, but they are good ones.

 

[313103]

100% agree as would any sensible member of public. Re delay for door opening. You can see how upset it makes people,specially when they want to catch train due on adjacent platform. They look anxious,they even press the button repeatedly. Why make our passengers anxious when there is no need?. I am told cutting time for door to open on a Singapore metro line saved 2 units in the circuit,a capital cost of 15 million pounds that was then spent on minor infrastructure improvements that speeded trains & saved almost another unit,6 million pounds.
That is one of the many reasons why operators who want to do a good job,& wise DfT people, want DOO. Incidentally it is also why the train & track operator should not have been split asunder. And please do not bring out the absurd argument that RSSB is run by Charles Horton. They merely draw on his considerable wisdom & expertise.

As spoken like Charles Horton, hence why you want the RMT destoyed. I can say that with impunity as you have not answered 99% of the points people for and against further extension of DOO have put towards you in this thread.

I actually thought you was someone i may of known, but you havent answered my personal message to you. You seemed to know quite a bit about what took place on London Overground so your either a senior union rep, a senior manager for London Overground, a senior manager within another train operating company ie Southern, a close friend of mine (highly unlikely on this forum, but could be possible), or a former employee of London Overground again unlikely.

Your posts having read quite a lot of them come across as someone deep in the know of the industry, in fact your message above is as a senior manager would put it.

Now i maybe clutching at straws, but you certainly one of the 5 i have mentioned above.

 

[Robertj21a]

As spoken like Charles Horton, hence why you want the RMT destoyed. I can say that with impunity as you have not answered 99% of the points people for and against further extension of DOO have put towards you in this thread.

I actually thought you was someone i may of known, but you havent answered my personal message to you. You seemed to know quite a bit about what took place on London Overground so your either a senior union rep, a senior manager for London Overground, a senior manager within another train operating company ie Southern, a close friend of mine (highly unlikely on this forum, but could be possible), or a former employee of London Overground again unlikely.

Your posts having read quite a lot of them come across as someone deep in the know of the industry, in fact your message above is as a senior manager would put it.

Now i maybe clutching at straws, but you certainly one of the 5 i have mentioned above.

Does it matter who he is ? - I'm reasonably sure there are a few people on this forum who may not be who they initially appear to be. It doesn't really matter surely ?

 

[craigybagel]

Indeed, there are lots of people on this thread who've never worked a day on the railway who are still apparently experts on what my job entails......

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Indeed, there are lots of people on this thread who've never worked a day on the railway who are still apparently experts on what my job entails......

Are you old enough to remember those people who used to be connected with "time and motion" staff analysis in the 1960s/1970s?

 

[BestWestern]

Indeed I think the RMT should be focused on ensuring there are two members of safety critical staff (rules, traction and routes) on every train just like they have got on ScotRail. There are so many examples of incidents where a guard could have made all the difference.

That is precisely the reason for the focus on doors. The Guard playing an essential role in the operation of the train is the only route to ensuring that they remain. Southern have demonstrated step by step what happens otherwise; the Guard disappears.

 

[Wolfie]

100% agree as would any sensible member of public. Re delay for door opening. You can see how upset it makes people,specially when they want to catch train due on adjacent platform. They look anxious,they even press the button repeatedly. Why make our passengers anxious when there is no need?. I am told cutting time for door to open on a Singapore metro line saved 2 units in the circuit,a capital cost of 15 million pounds that was then spent on minor infrastructure improvements that speeded trains & saved almost another unit,6 million pounds.
That is one of the many reasons why operators who want to do a good job,& wise DfT people, want DOO. Incidentally it is also why the train & track operator should not have been split asunder. And please do not bring out the absurd argument that RSSB is run by Charles Horton. They merely draw on his considerable wisdom & expertise.

my bold

If a serial failure like Charlie H is truly regarded as having those qualities in the railway industry it is unsurprising how much trouble said industry is currently in....

If you'd been on many Northern services you'd know why - there are plenty of guards who try to keep selling tickets for as long as possible and then by the time they move off to do the doors the train has already been stopped for 10 seconds or more and they can't get easily get to the door controls because all the passengers are crowding around the doors ready to alight.

On one occasion a Northern guard working a 323 I was on didn't release the doors on arrival at Piccadilly at all due to being too focused on ticket sales and his commission. The unit only had a 5 minute turnaround time so the guard who was working the next service (who had been waiting on the platform) got on and released the doors. The departing service left 4 minutes late due to a greedy guard on the arriving service and some people on the arriving service had to run across the station to make their connecting services. If it hadn't been for the guard who was taking the next service showing some initiative the delay would have been even worse.

Had said "greedy guard" not sold tickets I wonder how many passengers we might have seen on the "Disputes" section of this forum - if there was a ticket sting for instance he was doing those passengers a massive favour...

 

[Moonshot]

my bold

If a serial failure like Charlie H is truly regarded as having those qualities in the railway industry it is unsurprising how much trouble said industry is currently in....



Had said "greedy guard" not sold tickets I wonder how many passengers we might have seen on the "Disputes" section of this forum - if there was a ticket sting for instance he was doing those passengers a massive favour...

Last time that happened to me, i had to get the driver to open doors after i found myself attending to a poorly passenger at the wrong end ( for me ) of a 4 car unit.......absolutely nothing to do with revenue collection.

 

[gavin]

Talks between the RMT and Southern have broken down

 

[maniacmartin]

Talks between the RMT and Southern have broken down

In Southern's words:

Southern vows to move forward with modernisation plans as RMT talks end without agreement
Date: 15 Aug 2016

GTR, the parent company of Southern trains, today vowed to move forward with modernisation plans after the latest talks at Acas with the RMT ended without agreement.

Commenting, Angie Doll, GTR Passenger Services Director, said:

‘’We have been talking to the union for nine months now and, despite several visits to Acas, the union won't agree a deal. Passengers will be rightly exasperated that the RMT won’t agree to what most fair-minded people would believe is an incredibly good offer. We are guaranteeing jobs, pay and a second person on as many trains as we do today and also offered to work with the RMT to agree modern working practices to reduce cancellations and passenger disruption.

“The RMT’s position does not help our passengers at all. We have guaranteed to have a second person on as many trains as today, but the union is rigidly refusing our offer to agree a list of exceptional circumstances when we would be able to run our trains without a second staff member on board, such as during disruption to still get people home. This would create the crucial flexibility we need to ensure fewer cancelled trains for our passengers.

"The RMT has repeatedly tried to play the safety card as the issue but it did not raise this issue at all during these latest talks, confirming this dispute is purely about union power and control. The fact is that, day in, day out for decades, up and down Britain’s railways and the Tube network, we’ve had the driver operating the doors, safely. This is backed up by independent research and expert opinion, including that of the Rail Safety and Standards Board.

"We will now move forward with our modernisation plans which will deliver better customer service for our passengers. Our eight-point proposal is still on the table and we urge the RMT to give this serious consideration. Over the coming weeks, we will be working closely with our staff as we start to implement these vital changes. After so much unnecessary industrial action, we must all get back to the job of giving our passengers the service they expect and deserve."

ENDS

 

[maniacmartin]

And RMT's words:

15 August 2016
RMT Press Office

RMT issues full set of proposals rejected by GTR in Southern ACAS talks.

RAIL UNION RMT has released the full set of proposals that were tabled in ACAS talks aimed at reaching a settlement in the Southern guards dispute.

The unions proposals, rejected out of hand by the company, would have met the three core objectives;

*The delivery of the customer service objectives of the company.

*A safe and efficient operating system of operation, without the dilution of safety critical competencies, standards or processes, and to create a framework in which the TSM role will operate trains in conjunction with the Train Driver.

* High levels of accessibility to all train services for all passengers, enabling the disabled, elderly, vulnerable and others to be provided with assistance from on-board staff on all services.

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said;

"We are releasing the full details of our ACAS proposals so that the travelling public can see that RMT was making every possible effort to ensure a positive outcome in these talks.

"Our proposals covered all the three main areas requiring agreement to allow us to move forwards and we are bitterly disappointed that they have been rejected out of hand. We know that the public who use these services will share our anger and frustration. "

Ends

There is a PDF download on RMT's press release with their proposals

 

[JamesTT]

Talks between the RMT and Southern have broken down

Looks like the sticking point was being able to run with no OBS in certain situations. I wonder if the following would have worked.
The train can run without an OBS if an OBS is more than 30 minutes away.
If it does run with no OBS it can only call at staffed stations.
A shift not being covered due to sickness and holiday train is ECS till a location it can pick up an OBS.
Industrial action cannot be a reason for running trains without an OBS

 

[Tetchytyke]

Looks like the sticking point was being able to run with no OBS in certain situations

Well durr.

The plan only makes financial sense if you run trains without an OBS on board.

Funny how GTR aren't willing to agree to even the (relatively toothless) Strathclyde model of working.

But no doubt Connex Charlie will be back on here soon to do some astroturfing.

 

[Dave1987]

So the only thing that they won't agree on is the ability to run without a second member of staff. I can very much understand the RMT's stance on this as you only have to look at the local agreement ASLEF had on the Gat Express. The company had an inch of wriggle room and exploited it to the absolute max. The RMT have clearly learned from that. If the company hadn't gone against that local agreement they may well have had a settlement by now. There is clearly some serious distrust between the union reps and management.

 

[Robertj21a]

Southern putting out a statement that the RMT never raised the issue of safety "at all" seems incredible (if true).

 

[380101]

Well durr.

The plan only makes financial sense if you run trains without an OBS on board.

Funny how GTR aren't willing to agree to even the (relatively toothless) Strathclyde model of working.

But no doubt Connex Charlie will be back on here soon to do some astroturfing.

with the Strathclyde manning agreement trains still run without the 2nd staff member everyday and passengers of reduced mobility get left behind or over carried. Over 400 in the last 2 months alone. An unacceptable situation. The GTR obs role appears to be similar to the above.

 

[JamesTT]

Well durr.

The plan only makes financial sense if you run trains without an OBS on board.

Funny how GTR aren't willing to agree to even the (relatively toothless) Strathclyde model of working.

But no doubt Connex Charlie will be back on here soon to do some astroturfing.

As I have stated before they plan to reduce onboard staff by over 100 that is a saving already.
But my last post was more about negotiations regarding situations a train could run without an OBS. Those situations could set out in such a way. They could not be changed without negotiations with RMT

 

[ComUtoR]

As I have stated before they plan to reduce onboard staff by over 100 that is a saving already.

Nobody will be out of a job. There is no reduction of staff and they are in fact, recruiting for the OBS role. If they are planning to reduce 100 staff then why have they said there is no redundancies and everyone will have a job ? Are the RMT right to say that the OBS role only has a limited future and there are no guarantees of a job.

 

[JamesTT]

Nobody will be out of a job. There is no reduction of staff and they are in fact, recruiting for the OBS role. If they are planning to reduce 100 staff then why have they said there is no redundancies and everyone will have a job ? Are the RMT right to say that the OBS role only has a limited future and there are no guarantees of a job.

They said no compulsory redundancies. I have seen documentation on the intranet site that states target numbers of Conductors and OBS combined is about 100 less than the current level of Conductors and RPI staff. However the company has gone on record to say the level will then be maintained for the length of the franchise.

 

[hwl]

They said no compulsory redundancies. I have seen documentation on the intranet site that states target numbers of Conductors and OBS combined is about 100 less than the current level of Conductors and RPI staff. However the company has gone on record to say the level will then be maintained for the length of the franchise.

Are all the RPI transferring to OBS especially the metro area ones?