I know on some trains the door controls are in the back cab but even between Otford, Swanley and Victoria where the driver does the doors some guards remain in the back cab.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal
- Thread starter hornbyfan99
- Start date
- Status
I know on some trains the door controls are in the back cab but even between Otford, Swanley and Victoria where the driver does the doors some guards remain in the back cab.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
So come on then, how do you know that current DOO drivers don't share the same concerns as Southern drivers?
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,636
Do you know what it says on their diagram? I'd imagine not.
They could just be "PASS" to Victoria. Where they're just a passenger on the train, like you, to a point.
No, some guards do walk through the train checking tickets and dealing with enquiries, others remain in the back cab.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well they're happy to drive the DOO trains.
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Oh dear :roll:
The very people in question are Drivers on existing DOO services. They already do it, and they don't want to see it expanded.
This really isn't getting anywhere is it?:roll:
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,636
Again.. it doesn't mean they are all on the same diagram. If it's "ASST" As in Assist (where the drivers does the doors on SE), it might be up to guard if they do tickets or not.
How do you know they're happy driving DOO trains? Its not always a choice. As i've said, the ones I know who drive both MUCH prefer working with a guard and believe its the safer method.
And you're right, its not going anywhere because you seem to type some utter (ill informed) tripe, causing the thread to go round in circles.
The turnover in DOO depots is massive. Whenever we get drivers join / transfer from DOO depots, DOO is always mentioned as a reason to leave. Most DOO drivers cite near misses with late runners / drunks at dispatch, abuse, physical assault, and stress from having to deal with the public and deal with operational duties at the same time as their reasons.
No one is happy with DOO. At best it is "tolerated" by drivers who have known no different, but as well as the worries over the usual stuff drivers worry about, they have additional worries.
At the end of the day DOO adds nothing but stress and distraction (and an increased risk of a CDP / demotion / sacking or jail) for drivers. And when the drivers are dealing with the public, they are either being abused or attacked or dealing with complaints and issues which are usually beyond their remit because they are the only front line staff about. When a driver is approached by the public something has either gone badly wrong, or there is simply no one else for them to ask.
Last edited:
What have I said that is utter ill informed tripe? DOO trains do run everyday without incident.
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,636
You actually don't read some of the posts do you....
Utter lies. This rot has been debunked so stop repeating it. Do we really have to point out RAiB reports, Kentish Town and all the other stuff for the 100th time?
Last edited:
Yes I know about all that, accidents happen with or without guards.
The bulk of which have been with DOO and even the RSSB admit that the risks with DOO are greater.
I've been following this thread for ages.
So far, the consensus seems to be:
1. DOO is not unsafe, but it is less safe than running with a guard
2. The DOO drivers would prefer to have a guard, but not to the point where they refuse to do the job outright
3. The DfT are driving GTR's DOO programme and are not likely to back down
4. The DfT couldn't care less how many trains are cancelled
5. GTR couldn't care less how many trains are cancelled
6. It's not going to be good for the disabled or those who need assistance, but neither GTR or the DfT care about that
With all that in mind, what are the RMT now trying to achieve by digging in further and calling strikes at Christmas?
For what it's worth, I'd rather the guards that were there were kept and we didn't have this disruptive dispute. But since the government seem hell-bent on it and there's little to no chance of this becoming in any way politically dangerous for them, surely the game's up now and the RMT should be focussing on getting the best conditions for the OBS role?
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,636
Thats pretty much whats going on.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,691
To be fair, and regardless of all the other views on these issues, I also struggle to see what the RMT hopes to achieve by calling more strikes. Why don't they simply (for example) issue a Press Release saying that they are very unhappy with the current plans because the safety issues haven't been fully addressed - and then do a Press Conference outlining - clearly - precisely what the safety concerns are. Either they have convincing safety concerns, or they're calling strikes for little reason.
God knows why I'm biting AGAIN, but here goes. Has it ever occurred to you that drivers don't have a problem with DOO as such, but its increasingly reckless extension? There is a massive difference between dispatching a 4 car at a staffed quietish London station off peak and a longer distance 12 car at rammed unstaffed rural stations in the morning peak. But there has been NO debate or consultation - we're extending DOO, and that's it. No one with the power to change things wants to hear our GENUINE concerns. No consideration seems to have been given to when and where DOO might NOT be suitable, there is just a blanket assumption. Plenty of drivers have had DOO foisted on them - some of them deliberately picked certain operators or depots to avoid it and working methods were changed around them. Or plenty of drivers signed up for DOO under the impression that the dispatch methods were deemed as safe as possible with no comeback for the driver as long as he followed procedure. The reality has been different. There is not the level of choice that you seem to think. To delay a train or refuse to work a train you have to demonstrate a genuine safety reason - 9 stops out of 10 could be fine, then on the last one there's a problem. But only stop with a problem is needed to turn into an incident - and the driver is being left at its mercy. As you travel on trains so regularly maybe eventually you will be delayed by a driver having to go back and close each door manually.
I really don't know what you want to hear. That we should agree to anything that a saving can be made on? Let's get rid of passcomms, dets, flags, the evacuation ladder, fire extinguishers as well, because they're hardly ever needed. I travel on lots of DOO trains and I've never seen a fire extinguisher being used. They have to be bought, checked, changed regularly, it's all cost for the tiny probability of a fire. Let me assure you doing 100 dispatches a day concerns me far more than the likelihood of a fight, a fire, a trespass or a tree on the line, all of which are more difficult situations without a guard. But whereas these are unlikely to happen regularly, I know there will be several occasions a day when I'm aware that a situation could have developed on the platform that could leave me in a very difficult position - PTI issues are an EVERYDAY issue. You just hear about the ones that turn nasty. Doubtless you've got a smart answer to that too. It's clear to me you are just a wind up merchant and I would advise all the people who know what they're talking about to just stop giving you material - even though I've not been clever enough to follow my own advice!
Considering how many circles the thread has gone around recently, it was funny to go back and read the above comment from you.
You don't drive, yet you have more to say than anyone. And anyone skimming the thread could easily come to one conclusion, you are doing it for nothing more than to wind staff up.
No I'm not a wind up merchant and to be fair you make some interesting points.
On a 12 coach train at the height of rush hour wouldn't there be platform staff to assist as there are at East Croydon for example?
Not always. The default position the DFT want is DOO self dispatch via CCTV even on long trains at peak time. The plan is to axe dispatchers and have drivers solely responsible.
I don't think that will work.
Problems include:
- We live in such a safety-conscious, highly-regulated society that many people just would not believe now that an operator would be allowed to introduce a dangerous way of working.
- They would need to hire a reputable researcher (such as a university professor) and a good presenter, because the RMT are pathologically incapable of communicating effectively with the public. They're so far to the left that even today's Labour party isn't left enough for them.
- RMT have a 'boy who cried wolf' problem with safety because it is their go-to argument for every dispute.
- The 'too much responsibility for drivers' issue conflicts with their 'drivers deserve high wages because they are responsible for hundreds of people' messages.
That's the point. There are now plenty of extended platforms to reflect the increased patronage; and plenty of platforms that are much busier than they used to be, not just in the peaks. The methods we use to dispatch are not keeping pace with this growth. Dispatch staff are needed on the platforms but we are still using methods agreed 30 years ago, because it saves money and hands responsibility to the driver alone. So we have an existing DOO scope that is getting riskier and the response has been to widen the scope of DOO rather than look at how we might reduce dispatch risk and delays. I'm happy to admit to being motivated by self interest in this matter - I'm concerned about the implications for my livelihood and liberty - and personal safety. However I will also say that there's little advantage to the travelling public - there aren't that many trains cancelled due to no guard now - the lack of a second person has more detriment overall. And Southern drivers even agreed to work DOO in disruption to get round some of these instances (though not to cover poor recruitment planning) so showed willing, and this has been shamefully exploited.
OK, but the strikes aren't really working either, in the sense that GTR and the DfT don't really care if the trains don't run. The difference is the strikes disrupt the lives of people who have nothing to do with the dispute.
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,636
But giving up on the strikes could make it look as if the RMT have given up! i'm sure GTR would publish that as their success...
Evidence? Where are these reductions planned and where is this plan?
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,691
But I come back to my earlier point - what does the RMT expect to achieve from having these further strikes ? I get the impression that even their members are a bit bewildered by it all.
Well if that is the case I'd have to say it sounds less than ideal to put it mildly. I'm sure one of the staff at East Croydon told me that there was some rule about having to have so many platform staff to dispatch a 12 coach DOO train?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I can understand your points although Southeastern certainly seem to cancel a few trains because of no guard and of course just to rub it in passengers get to watch their train go through ECS.
tsr
Established Member
Every such rule has its local variations, but at Southern stations you'll usually have at least 2 people for a 12 coach train - one to attend to the driver's cab or CD/RA buttons (as applicable), and one to see the rest of the platform. In some cases - for example, where you were at East Croydon - you can need many more. This is specified in the dispatch plan (and on a centralised computer system) for every station. For dispatch plans involving platform staff, these are usually created by considering several criteria; not just the dispatch corridor which a driver's CCTV monitors should be able to show, but also the entrances and exits to the station, assisting with wheelchair ramps for shorter dwell times, viewing specific hazards such as large steps or gaps, places where passengers may congregate, you name it really!
It's interesting to note that in some ways the DOO + platform staff dispatch process is much less efficient and more distracting than platform staff + conductors, especially where legacies from previous operation mean some platforms have either a CD or RA indicator and button, not both. To take a typical example, on some platforms at East Croydon, the numbers of available staff do not allow one person to be by the driver's cab for the "CD" [Close Doors"] tip to be given with a baton after the train safety check, and another by the "RA" button to give the signal to the driver via the indicator mounted on the signal post. This means the person giving the "CD" tip has to show their baton to the driver when station work is complete, watch the doors close and perform their train safety check, then walk back to the equipment cabinet, receive the second tip from their colleagues, open it and push the "RA" button, and watch the train leave the platform.
Unfortunately, this has several flaws. From a punctuality and efficiency point of view, walking back from the car stop marker to the cabinet for anything from an 8 to 12 coach formation isn't terribly quick, especially on a crowded platform, and that's once the staff have made their way across to the right position by the driver's cab in the first place, accounting for whatever prior information they may or may not have about the train formation too. Then from a safety point of view, it's also more distracting than having to watch the platform/train interface whilst walking around, rather than maintaining a fixed position. Additionally, and of course this has been subject of much prior discussion on this forum, there is no way of cancelling an RA indication given in error, and it is immediately acted upon; not so with Southern conductors, who do not interact with the CD/RA except during degraded working, and have a few seconds' grace and time to react to platform staff showing a red handsignal.
With conductor dispatch of power-door stock, ie. everything Southern operates, the platform staff can choose and maintain an optimum position for visibility, and the conductor does not usually have to move from their door panel (the choice of which will be specified by route knowledge, in order to maintain visibility of the platform so far as possible) in order to close the doors and give the ready-to-start signal to the driver. You also need fewer platform staff at times, as of course the conductor can place themselves in one of their positions, whilst still maintaining the same checks of the platform and its surroundings.
To be fair we, as passengers, don't know that. What I do know is that my Southern Eastern train had an announcement asking the person with a bicycle to move away from the train as the doors couldnt be closed with him there. Ultimately I understand the driver had to shout out the window, luckily the person concerned was at the front of the train.
We dont know how often there are potential or actual incidents like this with guard or DOO trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I dont think anyone knows, but the problem is what else can they do? SOuthern won't negotiate about it, because they can't. So what else can the RMT do? Just say we dont agree and carry on? That doesnt help the long term career opportunities of their members nor the safety of the travelling public although no one seems to produce figures on that.
I have asked the Commons Transport Committee to look at the RAIB reports in to Hayes, West Wickham and to consider whether DOO is as safe as guards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For a start we are not sure it has been working perfectly well, but we do know the RAIB have investigated more incidents with DOO trains than one guards. We also know that trains are getting longer, that there are more passengers, that rail staff have been jailed, that drivers should see passengers trapped but havent etc.
It seems to me that DOO may be safe for some trains that are relatively short, have low passenger numbers etc, but possibly not as good for busy peak time services.
- Status