Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Antman]

And after calling 999 what would you tell them or if there's no signal what would your next course of action be?

This is all rather hypothetical isn't it?

 

[BestWestern]

I would probably call 999 but I'm sure you'll tell me that is the wrong course of action.

But that's just it, on a packed 12 coach train how is one guard going to prevent passengers letting themselves out of the train in the event of an accident?

Because the Guard is present, on the train, with the pasengers, whilst the Driver is off doing what he has to do. Mass-egress incidents have generally occurred because a trainload of passengers have effectively been abandoned because the Driver is dealing with the technical stuff.

As an example, the Guard has the means, the training and the authority and contact controlled and the signaller and request to open external doors, in a control and supervised manner, going trackside to do so if needed, to allow some air into packed, sealed carriages. The inability to get this done would have played a major part in passengers taking matters into their own hands in previous incidents. That ability to be on the track may be the only way of communicating with passengers, showing a presence and offering information and reassurance, where a train is crush loaded and stranded without power, and therefore no PA, no aircon, and limited lighting. Whilst the situation is a nightmare, boots on the ground makes a hell of a difference. An OBS can do absolutely nothing at all but sit back and watch the mayhem unfold.

As for the derailment, yes of course you could call 999. The problem is that doing that won't inform the signaller, won't stop oncoming trains, and will take far longer for any meaningful response to be arranged. If you're on a main line with trains bowling along at 125mph, the adjacent line partially obstructed, dazed or injured people sauntering about all over the place and potentially damaged 25,000 volt cables present, would you prefer to tell the signalman immediately, get trains stopped and the power switched off, or go through a call centre and have nothing done for 10 minutes or so?

 

[Antman]

The safety issues have been explained in length by very very experienced drivers, guards, station staff and railway staff of other grades.

If we are being arrogant, then the fact of the matter is that we railwaymen know better than Wilkinson, the DFT, Grayling and the Tories and corporates pushing destuffing, DOO and other cost cutting rot, because we do the job every day, we have seen the near misses, fatalities, assaults, abuse, aftermath of incidents, station overruns, stop shorts, dangerous practices, mistakes, distractions, violent / erratic behaviour, and so on, both from our own experiences, that of our colleagues, that which our managers brief us on and so on. We see them every day. We know the risks and the penalties we face if we make mistakes. Therefore we are the best people to know when a system works, and when it doesn't.

In the same way a brain surgeon, my GP or a nurse knows more about the NHS than Jeremy Hunt or Nick "break it up" Clegg, the same way front line coppers, detectives and so on knows more about policing than the politicians, the fact that the average squaddie knows far more about war than Hillary Clinton or whatever scumbag edits the sun now, and so on.

Passengers, whether they are inquisitive, interested or churning out the "smash the strikers and jail their wives" rot from the tabloids, do not know the realities of the industry in the same way we do.

I do not know the realities of policing for example. My mate is a copper, and rather than spout the "why do you not walk the beat / you lot are overpaid / beat up people for no reason / only bully motorists whilst letting nonces rape everyone / never seen a copper out on a Saturday night" nonsense, I actually listen to what he has to say, simply because he knows better than I do, and in many cases it is a real eye opener into why what we perceive the police to be doing as members of the public is completely different to the reality.

If we were talking about DOO being introduced for the very first time you might have a case but as you well know it's been working perfectly well elsewhere for years.

 

[Don King]

I would probably call 999 but I'm sure you'll tell me that is the wrong course of action.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But that's just it, on a packed 12 coach train how is one guard going to prevent passengers letting themselves out of the train in the event of an accident?

Assuming passengers are self evacuating - the following.

* Protection of the line to stop trains running into the wreckage, running over self evacuating passengers, or any other movements (e.g. points) which could injure / kill anyone - based on route knowledge and traction knowledge.

* Switching off the current (where appropriate) to avoid said passengers being electrocuted, be it DC 3rd rail or AC power lines which could have come down.

* Securing of driving cabs / brake vans to preserve evidence (brake gauge readings, positions of levers) and so forth (which may be used for further investigation, as either the cause or a contributory cause / impediment of / to the incident).

* Access the tools required to assist with train evacuations - ladders, fire extinguishers and so on.

* Co-ordinate people on board the train who may be able to assist either with operational duties (safety critical off duty or on duty rail staff) or customer service / crowd control (on / off duty staff) and passengers who may be in the police, fire brigade, armed forces or medical fields.

* Inform emergency services and rail authorities of the correct location, nature of the incident, approximate number of passengers, nature of passengers (disabled, vulnerable, children, intoxicated, potentially violent, whatever), and alert them to any hazards or additional issues on site.

* Hand over control of isolations to Rail Incident Officer / similar grades who will take charge.

* General customer care until the emergency services take over.


As for dialling 999, "I'm somewhere between Bristol Parkway and Swindon and it is dark / there is a field / wall here" isn't going to be much help, assuming there is reception. A lot will also depend on the nature of the people travelling. Your commuters going to work are likely to be in a sober state and have a far better idea of their bearings and where they are, than a holiday train filled with children and panicking parents, or a late night ****head special.

 

[Andrew32]

This is all rather hypothetical isn't it?

No it isn't, your first course of action has hit a problem so seeing as I'm useless, what would you do next after been unable to contact the emergency services via mobile?

 

[Don King]

If we were talking about DOO being introduced for the very first time you might have a case but as you well know it's been working perfectly well elsewhere for years.

No it hasn't been working perfectly well, as RAIB reports, internal briefings span reports, training videos and the like suggest, not to mention the issues surrounding provision of information in disruption, fault fixing and getting trains moving with a single person on board, revenue protection, customer care, personal safety, disabled passengers and so on.

 

[BestWestern]

This is all rather hypothetical isn't it?

?? Is that an admission of defeat? What a silly thing to say.

 

[physics34]

If we were talking about DOO being introduced for the very first time you might have a case but as you well know it's been working perfectly well elsewhere for years.

weve just been talking about incidents and fatalities involving DOO, so obviously it HASNT been working perfectly for years.

Safety should always be the NUMBER ONE issue, not MONEY, not TIMESAVING.......

 

[Antman]

No it isn't, your first course of action has hit a problem so seeing as I'm useless, what would you do next after been unable to contact the emergency services via mobile?

Err, did I say that you were useless?

With any sort of accident I would do what I thought best in the circumstances, as we don't know what the circumstances would be is there any point in speculating further?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

weve just been talking about incidents and fatalities involving DOO, so obviously it HASNT been working perfectly for years.

Safety should always be the NUMBER ONE issue, not MONEY, not TIMESAVING.......

It seems to work ok on the trains I've been on, and well ok no system is perfect.

And yes safety should be number one but inevitably costs have to come into the equation as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

?? Is that an admission of defeat? What a silly thing to say.

Well no it's a bit like me asking you what you would do in the event of a road accident, until it occurs you can't really say can you?

 

[FordFocus]

The RMT seem to refuse to accept DOO and DCO are different. So they presumably think that asking guards to not do door duties is the same as making them redundant!

The rulebook does not have anything called "DCO" in it. It's the same as DOO.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Passengers, whether they are inquisitive, interested or churning out the "smash the strikers and jail their wives" rot from the tabloids, do not know the realities of the industry in the same way we do.

I am most concerned what you say above, especially where I have emboldened it.

Which of the tabloids have suggested sending the wives of those workers on strike to prison?

 

[FordFocus]

But not if they are also incapacitated.

Who's more likely to be incapacitated. A driver sat in a fibreglass cab who's just smashed into an obstruction or a guard who isn't sat in the crumple zone of the train?

 

[Andrew32]

Err, did I say that you were useless?

With any sort of accident I would do what I thought best in the circumstances, as we don't know what the circumstances would be is there any point in speculating further?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It seems to work ok on the trains I've been on, and well ok no system is perfect.

And yes safety should be number one but inevitably costs have to come into the equation as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well no it's a bit like me asking you what you would do in the event of a road accident, until it occurs you can't really say can you?

Exactly, every situation is different and guards are trained for every possible scenario, the only option to the passenger is dialing 999 and even that is out of the equation if they themselves are trapped or incapacitated or there is no signal available.

I gave you a scenario so it wasn't a speculative question and you have failed to give an answer other than dialing 999

 

[Don King]

It seems to work ok on the trains I've been on, and well ok no system is perfect.
?

Can I make a few assumptions here?

* You have never been involved in a rail accident of any sort, or a situation where you are stranded on a train for hours.
* You buy your tickets before boarding (or are a season ticket holder).
* You stand behind the yellow line, do not run for trains, do not hold doors open, run near trains as they depart.
* You sit quietly and get on with your business or chat with friends / family and do not engage in criminal activity, nor upset or cause trouble with the other passengers.
* You do not engage in reckless behaviour or abuse / assault / distract the driver.
* You are largely left alone by other passengers.
* You are fairly railway savvy and know what apps / websites to use when there is disruption, and are not reliant on staff for information.
* You are able bodied with no need for any special assistance or requirements.
* You have no serious mental health problems which can lead to impaired judgement, nor are a vulnerable individual.
* If you drink alcohol, then you either drink responsibly when on railway property or when travelling after a few beers / wine with a meal or whatever.
* You are over 18 and conduct yourself like a sensible adult in and around railways.
* You will always follow an order / instruction / request given by a member of rail staff or police officer.

The problem is that accidents and incidents do happen, and not everyone will fit into the categories above, and this is where the problems start to arise. Your own experience based on the above assumptions is probably true for a large percentage of the travelling public. It is the exceptions we have to watch out for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am most concerned what you say above, especially where I have emboldened it.

Which of the tabloids have suggested sending the wives of those workers on strike to prison?

A humourous exaggeration of the mentality of the tabloids / internet commentator mentality whenever industrial action is raised, although I wouldn't put it past some of the commenters or the crap in rags like the Daily Star. Jeremy Clarkson after all called for strikers to be shot - which I personally viewed as him larking around and deliberately playing up the "Angry from Tonbridge Wells" Thatcherite stereotype - I certainly didn't take any offence by it.

 

[Andrew32]

Can I make a few assumptions here?

* You have never been involved in a rail accident of any sort, or a situation where you are stranded on a train for hours.
* You buy your tickets before boarding (or are a season ticket holder).
* You stand behind the yellow line, do not run for trains, do not hold doors open, run near trains as they depart.
* You sit quietly and get on with your business or chat with friends / family and do not engage in criminal activity, nor upset or cause trouble with the other passengers.
* You do not engage in reckless behaviour or abuse / assault / distract the driver.
* You are largely left alone by other passengers.
* You are fairly railway savvy and know what apps / websites to use when there is disruption, and are not reliant on staff for information.
* You are able bodied with no need for any special assistance or requirements.
* You have no serious mental health problems which can lead to impaired judgement, nor are a vulnerable individual.
* If you drink alcohol, then you either drink responsibly when on railway property or when travelling after a few beers / wine with a meal or whatever.
* You are over 18 and conduct yourself like a sensible adult in and around railways.
* You will always follow an order / instruction / request given by a member of rail staff or police officer.

The problem is that accidents and incidents do happen, and not everyone will fit into the categories above, and this is where the problems start to arise. Your own experience based on the above assumptions is probably true for a large percentage of the travelling public.

As I said many posts back, Antman is part of the Me myself and I , if I'm ok, sod everyone else, what good enough for me is good enough for everyone else brigade.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Jeremy Clarkson after all called for strikers to be shot - which I personally viewed as him larking around and deliberately playing up the "Angry from Tonbridge Wells" Thatcherite stereotype - I certainly didn't take any offence by it.

Clarkson is a poor example to use as his personal frailties are well known. The problem is there seems no end of apologists who support him, despite the fact that at the age of 56, he should have attained a certain amount of adulthood maturity by now.

 

[NSEFAN]

Well no it's a bit like me asking you what you would do in the event of a road accident, until it occurs you can't really say can you?

This is the point. You may not know what to do in the event of an emergency on the railway, but the trained staff on board do know. Most people experience roads and learn how to deal with road accidents, but comparatively few people know how to conduct themselves on the live railway once they've detrained themselves. This is why we have safety procedures and safety-trained staff. Phoning 999 is of no help if you have no idea where you are, whereas trained staff with route knowledge will know exactly what to do, which is get trains stopped and get assistance to the exact location of the incident.

And as has been mentioned countless times, even when there is no accident there are still the risks involved at station platforms during dispatch, where the current DOO methods of working create a danger zone with nobody monitoring it. It's therefore possible for passengers to come to harm and for the driver to have absolutely no idea what has happened (examples of which have been listed/link to up thread).

What I find amazing about the entire DOO saga is that, on one hand, H&S law requires the risk to the public to be minimised, and yet on the other it is somehow okay to increase risks to the public because of the grandfather rights of DOO in order to save money. To me this is an abuse of the concept of grandfather rights: it smacks of complacency and an attitude that safety is somehow and investment which can be cashed in upon to make a few quick savings.

 

[HowardGWR]

weve just been talking about incidents and fatalities involving DOO, so obviously it HASNT been working perfectly for years.

Safety should always be the NUMBER ONE issue, not MONEY, not TIMESAVING.......

This may be your opinion, but money (through cost benefit analysis) is how expenditure on safety is justified by institutions (whether local or national). If we didn't have some form of comparison for justifying expense, it would just be left to a shouting match as to where money was spent.

I can expand on this if anyone is interested.

 

[infobleep]

No matter how heat-resistant the driver is, he can't physically be simultaneously out placing emergency protection on adjacent, potentially obstructed, lines (having been unable to contact the Signalman or unable to obtain an assurance that signal protection has been provided) and finding out exactly what's happened and helping passengers take the safest course of action (as opposed to panicking and evacuating onto the adjacent line with a train approaching at linespeed).

When I'm on a DOO train, I find I get essential information as to what is happening than on a train with a guard this is because the driver is busy driving the train. That's precisely what he should be doing.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[FordFocus]

I've not properly been on this topic for over a week but a quick glance through and I see the same comments been made over again. In fact I accidentally subscribed to a topic elsewhere on the forum about where the finest cake and tea rooms are in Cheshire and Greater Manchester which was marginally more interesting than this.

There was a comment made about someone travelling as a passenger who has never seen any issues with DOO. The problem I have with this is I have no idea on what their journey is. It could be simply going the next stop on a 4 minute journey on an empty 8 car train or they could go up to an hour stood up on a 319 packed in like sardines. The poster subsequently complained that they were along the lines of been shouted down.

As a DOO driver I can do up to 120 stops a day, have to watch many sets of doors and platforms in a variety of infrastructure and weather configurations. Without sounding arrogant, I do have an idea on what I'm talking about here. I have no idea on how track is maintained so I wouldn't even dare to go over a bunch of p-way workers and tell them how to do their jobs. Instead I would listen to their views and they would be taken onboard. If I could take forum members with me for a shift starting at 0330 for 100 odd stops, I would.

DOO came about in the 80s when the network was in desperate need of funding , safety standards were more lax and crucially the passenger numbers were lower. I don't buy the "we've had DOO on Thameslink for nearly 30 years". Times change, safety standards change. The railway in this country has been forward moving with safety for a number of years. Loose shunting in yards was dangerous and caused injuries, that was banned. SPADs were on the increase, TOCs got a handle on new, better teaching methods and eventually TPWS came in. Wider and better platforms have been the new standards to meet tomorrow's passenger demands so a reduction in people standing so close to the edge on overcrowded platforms. For some reason, the manning and dispatch of trains has gone the opposite way with the danger of the platform train interface is in my honest opinion, not been addressed. PTI incidents are on the increase.

In 2016, Drivers workloads are increasing. More services require more drivers but the planning and rostering departments are trying to squeeze every last minute out of drivers for maximum productivity. This is a safety critical job, there are only so many backup systems to prevent errors and accidents. Not every signal is fitted with TPWS nor can trains rely on the door interlock system just encase someone is trapped..

On some driver's turns you may have had a 25 minute pause between trains at a terminus. This was enough to get a cup of coffee, a quick refresh and chance to use the facilities. Now your probably stuck on the same train in the chair for nearly 5 hours with no rest and are more prone to mistakes. A simple misread of a blurry DOO monitor on an overcrowded platform, a passenger then gets trapped and dragged with potentially serious injuries. The driver is removed from trains and possibly in court with a CPS thrown against them. It doesn't matter if your earning £20k, 50k or 90k a year, the human body is prone to mistakes when fatigued or under pressure (delays, performance...) and this is not just restricted to the railway industry. This is one of the many reasons drivers are very, very reluctant to ever expand this DOO method of working.

 

[infobleep]

No. Just no.

Ringing 999 at some random interval between stations (ie. wherever you can't self-evacuate) is going to result in you being able to give realistically no useful information whatsoever about your location (often the first thing that is asked), probably very little accurate information on exactly what the emergency is, and even if the call handler actually has up to date instructions based on the Rule Book and route knowledge for every conceivable location of a train accident (which I somehow doubt), you won't be able to do anything which is any better than a driver or guard can, when it comes to you making it out alive.

With all due respect to them (they do, after all, do a massively challenging job), the best a 999 call handler can do is find out some sketchy details from you and get their colleague on the other headset to dispatch BTP to "somewhere between Haywards Heath and East Croydon"... if you're lucky they might a) have a prompt telling them to and b) actually go ahead and call the right signaller, but even then possibly via someone else, such as another call handler within the NR Emergency Helpline. And goodness only knows if they know how to make an emergency call, which isn't as easy as it sounds. In that time, a member of trained crew can easily check which lines their train is obstructing, lay TCOCs, and push the hazard lights and the big red button on the GSM-R. Now, that's all very useful, waaay more so in fact, but it's assuming you've got someone able to do so. On a DOO train, you have exactly half the chances you'd have on a train with a guard. So, basically, while you're chatting to a 999 call handler, you've got roughly half the chances that someone is acting in line with rules written in blood, sweat and experience from over about 2 centuries, and doing what needs to be done to prevent you becoming another stain on the list of revisions to the rules. Happy?

The guard may not be able to help you personally at first (though in accidents it is often remarkable just how quickly they do make themselves visible to passengers). However, they will be able to act to prevent the whole train and its occupants being mulched by another one, they have to know where they are at all times and they know which specialist colleagues they need to give that information to.

I undertake Street Naming and Numbering of new buildings and redevelopments as part of my job and for all new addresses, we try to make them as clear and easily to understand as possible so that emergency services can get to the right location as soon as possible without confusion.

It has been shown that delays can cause lives when it comes to the emergency services locating properties. In fact they use the statistics of those who've died to make business cases for improved addressing and sharing of addresses between different emergency service types.

I would hope the railways would employ something similar. They can't however expect passengers to employ it. What passenger has the fall location knowledge of the railway line they are on?

I don't know what guards or drivers would use to give their location, if speaking to someone but it will be far more accurate than what I could give.

My attempt might be we are by a tree. There is a field across the way from us. I can see a building but not sure. Hang on I'll just try Google Maps aerial photography. Oh no I won't. I've got no mobile data reception. I'll just wait for another train to hit us instead.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[74A]

What I find amazing about the entire DOO saga is that, on one hand, H&S law requires the risk to the public to be minimised, and yet on the other it is somehow okay to increase risks to the public because of the grandfather rights of DOO in order to save money. To me this is an abuse of the concept of grandfather rights: it smacks of complacency and an attitude that safety is somehow and investment which can be cashed in upon to make a few quick savings.

But there are no increased risks in DOO.

 

[Antman]

As I said many posts back, Antman is part of the Me myself and I , if I'm ok, sod everyone else, what good enough for me is good enough for everyone else brigade.

Is that really the best you can do?:roll:

 

[infobleep]

Ooops I missed out the word last!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You phone 999, there aren't any branches. They will ask what service you require.

The local signaller please. Is that a service? Haha.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Antman]

This is the point. You may not know what to do in the event of an emergency on the railway, but the trained staff on board do know. Most people experience roads and learn how to deal with road accidents, but comparatively few people know how to conduct themselves on the live railway once they've detrained themselves. This is why we have safety procedures and safety-trained staff. Phoning 999 is of no help if you have no idea where you are, whereas trained staff with route knowledge will know exactly what to do, which is get trains stopped and get assistance to the exact location of the incident.

And as has been mentioned countless times, even when there is no accident there are still the risks involved at station platforms during dispatch, where the current DOO methods of working create a danger zone with nobody monitoring it. It's therefore possible for passengers to come to harm and for the driver to have absolutely no idea what has happened (examples of which have been listed/link to up thread).

What I find amazing about the entire DOO saga is that, on one hand, H&S law requires the risk to the public to be minimised, and yet on the other it is somehow okay to increase risks to the public because of the grandfather rights of DOO in order to save money. To me this is an abuse of the concept of grandfather rights: it smacks of complacency and an attitude that safety is somehow and investment which can be cashed in upon to make a few quick savings.

Just like a fireman would know what to do in the event of a house fire but nobody would seriously suggest having a fire tender sat on each street corner just in case. Whilst safety should come first costs inevitably have to come into everything at some point.

 

[infobleep]

Thank you ... a comment from a rail employee that is not belittling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Again with technology ... most of this could be detected and actioned automatically by the signalman. A train not reaching a signal within a set timespan should place the signal box on high alert, so most of that first part is taken care of.

The whole process seems to be too manual action heavy .... manual actions are more often wrong (human error) than automated ones

Automated actions are only correct is programmed correctly. Not every software provider seems to care about correct programming.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Dave1987]

But there are no increased risks in DOO.

Yes there are, but the powers that be believe the costs savings justify that risk.

 

[FordFocus]

But there are no increased risks in DOO.

Can you elaborate a bit more please?

 

[74A]

Can you elaborate a bit more please?

What more is there to say. No one has found there to be any increased risk of DOO over Driver Guard despatch. Do you not think if it was less safe ASLEF would be saying so ? The upcoming ballot just says that DOO should not be extended without out their agreement. No mention of safety.

 

[NSEFAN]

But there are no increased risks in DOO.

But there are greater risks. As the train departs, there is nobody monitoring the PTI, hence the train cannot be stopped should a passenger come to harm. That is more dangerous than having someone monitor what's going on as the train leaves, and being in a position to stop should something go wrong.

Just like a fireman would know what to do in the event of a house fire but nobody would seriously suggest having a fire tender sat on each street corner just in case. Whilst safety should come first costs inevitably have to come into everything at some point.

So you are saying that, because we want to save money, we should increase the risks to the public? That's not how safety is supposed to work. You can't just make something more dangerous because it's convenient to do so. Safety standards should at the very least be maintained or bettered, but not made worse. The same goes for disabled access, which has also been mentioned up-thread.

In the case of firemen, we have reduced the chance of fires occurring with improvements to the way we run households. In the case of DOO implementation, we are adding PTI risks that are mitigated by having someone watch what's going on for the entire duration of the dispatch. A better analogy would be replacing fire-retardant fabrics in sofas for older, more flammable ones, because nobody wants to pay for the safer type anymore.