Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Fincra5]

Thats one of the main issues... DOO started when passenger numbers were less and the trains were shorter. The networks seemed less busy.

Fast Forward to now.. trains are like sardine cans, they're longer and the view you get to dispatch on some modern trains... a share of the screen where each camera's view for the driver is not much larger than a standard iPhone.

As I've said its not an unsafe method of dispatch its just not as safe as a guard. Its cheaper.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Incidentially it is worth being aware that various bodies have given evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee investigation in to rail safety.
Most of the bodies look at the platform/train interface. ASLEF, RMT, RAIB, RSSB have all contributed.

Their statements can be found at
https://www.parliament.uk/business/...rliament-2015/rail-safety-16-17/publications/

The next session is oral evidence on 14th November

 

[NSEFAN]

Thats one of the main issues... DOO started when passenger numbers were less and the trains were shorter. The networks seemed less busy.

I know this is hypothetical, but I wonder how history would have panned out had BR instead made Bedford - St Pancras an ATO route. From the perspective of PTI safety, this might actually have been better, as the guard could have full control of this whilst the train takes care of the "easy" part. GOO anyone?

 

[otomous]

Incidentially it is worth being aware that various bodies have given evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee investigation in to rail safety.
Most of the bodies look at the platform/train interface. ASLEF, RMT, RAIB, RSSB have all contributed.

Their statements can be found at
https://www.parliament.uk/business/...rliament-2015/rail-safety-16-17/publications/

The next session is oral evidence on 14th November

I even wonder if in the long term it will be cheaper. I've had plenty of hold ups having to deal with passcomms etc that a guard would once have sorted with no loss of time. And of course then I'm blocking the line and the delays start rippling out, trains missing slots at junctions and due to short turnarounds leaving the terminus late on their next trip which prevents another train getting in and so on.

And I'm aware that in the light of recent events my dispatch times are creeping up, sometimes due to the restricted view I'm waiting until it's more obvious that the entire edge of the train is clear all along with a decent margin (which in the morning can be nigh on impossible) and more likely to close down the cab and walk back to do the doors manually. I am beginning to wonder if this is why the network is increasingly unreliable - sheer numbers plus driver fears is introducing a new layer of delay that is killing the timetable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know this is hypothetical, but I wonder how history would have panned out had BR instead made Bedford - St Pancras an ATO route. From the perspective of PTI safety, this might actually have been better, as the guard could have full control of this whilst the train takes care of the "easy" part. GOO anyone?

Automation is the only way for the railway to meet increasingly high standards of safety and meet the timetable too,given the tight infrastructure, I think. But it requires investment on a scale we've not seen, and notably it's not widespread in nations that have kept investing - isolated segregated new lines tend to be the relevant ones. Likely to be issues mixing automated driverless trains with the inter city trains along that stretch in particular, though I don't know for sure.

 

[Carlisle]

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. !

Seeing as there's been very little extension of DOO since privatisation C2C (2004) Bathgate (2010) London Overground (2014) I don't understand where you get the idea that it's being forced through on drivers everywhere,without consultation, (unless your referring to the original BR days when most DOO was introduced) there's been plenty of time since for negotiations, but the unions rightly or wrongly have in recent times anyway chosen outright opposition instead, probably leading to most TOCs simply avoiding the issue altogether for as long as they possibly can

 

[otomous]

Seeing as there's been very little extension of DOO since privatisation C2C (2004) Bathgate (2010) London Overground (2014) I don't understand where you get the idea that it's being forced through on drivers everywhere,without consultation, (unless your referring to BR days when most schemes were originally introduced) there's been plenty of time since for negotiations, but the unions rightly or wrongly have in recent times chosen outright opposition instead

You can't negotiate if one party has already told you what is happening and is not prepared to debate it. There has been NO debate. And apart from the fact that it's being forced on to all Southern drivers, because all Southern drivers drive 377s, it's fairly well known that Northern is next, the HST replacements are being built with DOO in mind, and if TFL takes over SWT metro routes the guards will inevitably be withdrawn. At least there will be fully staffed platforms in the TfL metro area but that's not helpful to those at Holmwood, Warnham or Ockley. You are naive if you don't think it's only a matter of time.

 

[JamesTT]

You can't negotiate if one party has already told you what is happening and is not prepared to debate it. There has been NO debate. And apart from the fact that it's being forced on to all Southern drivers, because all Southern drivers drive 377s, it's fairly well known that Northern is next, the HST replacements are being built with DOO in mind, and if TFL takes over SWT metro routes the guards will inevitably be withdrawn. At least there will be fully staffed platforms in the TfL metro area but that's not helpful to those at Holmwood, Warnham or Ockley. You are naive if you don't think it's only a matter of time.

Both parties have said they won't negotiate. IMO ASLEF should never have agreed that FCC could run 12 car DOO trains. Also I think a lesson has been learnt with regards to local agreements

 

[Robertj21a]

You can't negotiate if one party has already told you what is happening and is not prepared to debate it. There has been NO debate. And apart from the fact that it's being forced on to all Southern drivers, because all Southern drivers drive 377s, it's fairly well known that Northern is next, the HST replacements are being built with DOO in mind, and if TFL takes over SWT metro routes the guards will inevitably be withdrawn. At least there will be fully staffed platforms in the TfL metro area but that's not helpful to those at Holmwood, Warnham or Ockley. You are naive if you don't think it's only a matter of time.

If I recall correctly, the RMT had already announced that they would not agree to any extension of DOO - that was prior to Southern taking a harder stance on the issue. Presumably, the company had recognised already that there was little point in any meaningful debate given the stance by the RMT.

 

[John R]

What's interesting is that the guards are having their safety responsibility removed, and yet the unions are striking over this point. I could understand it if the staff still had some responsibility but felt the changed procedures were in some way unsafe and that they could be liable. Actually, staff have a less responsible job, with no potential for liability in the event of an incident, and the same pay. So the member's conditions have actually improved.

Surely it then becomes the company's (and de facto the government's) decision as to what is and isn't safe. Of course, the union representing the drivers, who then do take on the additional responsibility and thus risk, clearly do have a vested interest in such a change, and would have cause to take action if they did not like the change. Which may still happen.

Of course, we all know that safety is often used by the RMT as an excuse when often it is their member's wider interests are at stake. The reality is that the union sees this move as diluting, if not removing, the bargaining power that they have, as their members are no longer necessary for trains to keep running. Thus it becomes a strategic campaign, but of course, they can't say that (and neither can the government who are holding out for exactly the same reason).

 

[BestWestern]

What's interesting is that the guards are having their safety responsibility removed, and yet the unions are striking over this point. I could understand it if the staff still had some responsibility but felt the changed procedures were in some way unsafe and that they could be liable. Actually, staff have a less responsible job, with no potential for liability in the event of an incident, and the same pay. So the member's conditions have actually improved.

Surely it then becomes the company's (and de facto the government's) decision as to what is and isn't safe. Of course, the union representing the drivers, who then do take on the additional responsibility and thus risk, clearly do have a vested interest in such a change, and would have cause to take action if they did not like the change. Which may still happen.

Of course, we all know that safety is often used by the RMT as an excuse when often it is their member's wider interests are at stake. The reality is that the union sees this move as diluting, if not removing, the bargaining power that they have, as their members are no longer necessary for trains to keep running. Thus it becomes a strategic campaign, but of course, they can't say that (and neither can the government who are holding out for exactly the same reason).

What the RMT also sees, doubtless in addition to the above, is the membership being out of a job in a few years, as a direct result of the changes. Thus it has grounds to resist those changes, and rightly so.

 

[alastair]

from wnxx:

ASLEF have suspended their strike ballot saying they intend tp restart it, they seem to have made some error in running it.

 

[Domh245]

Can anyone elaborate on what the "technical difficulties" that have suspended the latest ASLEF ballot are? I've just heard it on the news, supposedly they are going to reissue 1000 ballots. Southern have said

We're pleased that Aslef has called off this ballot. This welcome development gives us the time and opportunity to sit down with union officials to resolve their dispute.

 

[redbutton]

It'll either be an error in the wording or ineligible members being sent ballots (or vice versa- eligible members not being balloted). The union is being extremely careful after their High Court experience to make sure that every detail is scrutinised to prevent another court challenge.

The GX court case showed that even the slightest unintentional misstep could invalidate the entire dispute and hand a default victory to GTR, so ASLEF are understandably keen to avoid a similar situation from happening again.

 

[John R]

What the RMT also sees, doubtless in addition to the above, is the membership being out of a job in a few years, as a direct result of the changes. Thus it has grounds to resist those changes, and rightly so.

Really? If I look on the RMT website it clearly states, that the dispute is not about pay and conditions. To quote:-

What's the dispute about - passenger safety.

So this dispute is not about pay and conditions. RMT members are taking strike action and losing pay because they are concerned about passenger safety.


Unless of course you don't believe what the RMT say?

 

[Chrisgr31]

Really? If I look on the RMT website it clearly states, that the dispute is not about pay and conditions. To quote:-

What's the dispute about - passenger safety.

So this dispute is not about pay and conditions. RMT members are taking strike action and losing pay because they are concerned about passenger safety.


Unless of course you don't believe what the RMT say?

Well at the same time you may wonder why Southern want to change the system and whether it really is just so they can run trains with only 1 member of staff in times of disruption. When considering this do remember that this is the company who have apparently had rosters which have cut staff to the bone and result in disruption affecting London Victoria very soon affecting London Bridge as well.

As we all know the reality is that Southern are at the beck and call of their paymasters the DfT and Mr Wilkinson who want to crush the unions whilst the unions dont want to lose their power.

The slightly strange thing about this is how unnecessary it appears to crush the unions. Until this dispute it had been years since we last had a strike, yes they had been threatened by a solution had always been reached. This dispute is affecting one of the most profitable rail areas in the country and seems so pointless.

 

[John R]

Well at the same time you may wonder why
Until this dispute it had been years since we last had a strike, yes they had been threatened by a solution had always been reached. This dispute is affecting one of the most profitable rail areas in the country and seems so pointless.

Funny I could have sworn my commute on GWR was affected by several RMT strikes last year.

 

[JamesTT]

Just a thought but seeing as a lot of trains on the BML including all the TL services, all 1D's 1U's and majority of 1A's were already DOO. In hindsight would it not have been sensible for the RMT and ASLEF to discuss making that route DOO. Then to have obtained assurances re staffing at stations for assisting passengers who need it. They could have then discussed terms for the RPOs that were made into OBS, which I understand didn't happen (happy to be corrected). Finally but most importantly they could have set out a firm position of no extension of DOO(P) to lines that are not already DOO(P)

 

[Carlisle]

Finally but most importantly they could have set out a firm position of no extension of DOO(P) to lines that are not already DOO(P)

How for example can you say DOO(p) is safe as far as Dorking indefinitely but no further south ever ? it's either a safe method fit for expansion under certain conditions or unsafe and to be phased out altogether

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

How for example can you say DOO(p) is safe as far as Dorking indefinitely but no further south ever ? it's either a safe method fit for expansion under certain conditions or unsafe and to be phased out altogether

As I have said previously given the massive increase in passenger numbers since DOO(P) was first introduced it is high time there was a top to bottom review of the concept, warts and all, to identify under what conditions we can be reasonably sure of its safe operation or not. Such a review would also need to take account of the needs of PRMs; indeed the implications of the Discrimination Act have yet to be tested against DOO(P) as it currently stands, even allowing for the use of reasonable adjustments.

In terms of an industrial dispute it really is down to ASLEF to decide whether or not to mount a concerted attempt to resist. The history of the dispute(s) so far on GTR-Southern suggests to me that the real conflict will come on Northern where DOO(P) does not currently exist at all.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In terms of an industrial dispute it really is down to ASLEF to decide whether or not to mount a concerted attempt to resist. The history of the dispute(s) so far on GTR-Southern suggests to me that the real conflict will come on Northern where DOO(P) does not currently exist at all.

Would the fact that Northern only operate short-length trains in comparison the those operated by GTR have any reflection on what you say above?

 

[BestWestern]

Would the fact that Northern only operate short-length trains in comparison the those operated by GTR have any reflection on what you say above?

I believe it is the mainline, 'Northern Connect' services being targeted. The idea here appears to be growth, and so one might reasonably suggest that it would be a foolish decision to agree DOO now when the trains could easily eventually double in size.

Either way, Aslef are in a strong position and, save for a dramatic change of policy, are very highly unlikely to agree to it on any terms.

 

[wfrank]

Very good news for travellers. I'm told that Northern is going to tell drivers to release doors on all trains, where door controls allow. This follows Scotrail,rmt & Aslef agreeing to this mode of operation. Indeed Aslef & Rmt are said to have praised the Scotrail deal as a good agreement. The praise is supposed to be on their websites but I haven't found it. It is good news because all those wasteful & annoying 10 to 20 second waits for door release will be gone & longer term journeys can be quicker & perhaps less stock will be needed, saving money, some of which should go to the passengers & taxpayers.
SWT & London Midland can also go to driver door release right now providing they guarantee, as Scotrail did, that they won't be going for proper DOO in their franchise periods.

 

[infobleep]

Very good news for travellers. I'm told that Northern is going to tell drivers to release doors on all trains, where door controls allow. This follows Scotrail,rmt & Aslef agreeing to this mode of operation. Indeed Aslef & Rmt are said to have praised the Scotrail deal as a good agreement. The praise is supposed to be on their websites but I haven't found it. It is good news because all those wasteful & annoying 10 to 20 second waits for door release will be gone & longer term journeys can be quicker & perhaps less stock will be needed, saving money, some of which should go to the passengers & taxpayers.
SWT & London Midland can also go to driver door release right now providing they guarantee, as Scotrail did, that they won't be going for proper DOO in their franchise periods.

So why couldn't GTR do this? Or why don't they want to? What is harmful in them implementing it?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[craigybagel]

So why couldn't GTR do this? Or why don't they want to? What is harmful in them implementing it?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

For the most part GTR already do. As to why they want more than that, they claim it won't deliver any benefits to passengers since they're still forced to pay a conductor to be on every train..... Sorry, forced to not free up conductors to conduct customer service even though there's no guarantee they'll actually be on a train to help customers in the first place.....

 

[hwl]

So why couldn't GTR do this? Or why don't they want to? What is harmful in them implementing it?

That is effectively the old Southern system of operation for the last 15 years that is being moved away from...

3 main issues:
a) Flexibility to run services when there is disruption without a guard rather than cancel, the alternative is to have lots of extra guards and have spare rostered a key locations

b) moving Southern services to Thameslink which will need them to operate 700s with DOO as Southern services pre transfer, hence drivers on "southern" services opening and closing doors outside the metro DOO area during the period (bidders had to have viable plan to do this!).

c) if you are running Thameslink services as DOO to the same stations as Southern why is one DOO and the other not?

 

[Carlisle]

That is effectively the old Southern system of operation that is being moved away from...

Exacly, so why do ASLEF when publicly discussing the Southern dispute constantly refer to the Scotrail deal,? as you point out. it's bound to be almost completely irrelevant to any settlement ithats eventually reached in this dispute

 

[Dave1987]

Very good news for travellers. I'm told that Northern is going to tell drivers to release doors on all trains, where door controls allow. This follows Scotrail,rmt & Aslef agreeing to this mode of operation. Indeed Aslef & Rmt are said to have praised the Scotrail deal as a good agreement. The praise is supposed to be on their websites but I haven't found it. It is good news because all those wasteful & annoying 10 to 20 second waits for door release will be gone & longer term journeys can be quicker & perhaps less stock will be needed, saving money, some of which should go to the passengers & taxpayers.
SWT & London Midland can also go to driver door release right now providing they guarantee, as Scotrail did, that they won't be going for proper DOO in their franchise periods.

Common sense? Surely not.

 

[PHILIPE]

Very good news for travellers. I'm told that Northern is going to tell drivers to release doors on all trains, where door controls allow. This follows Scotrail,rmt & Aslef agreeing to this mode of operation. Indeed Aslef & Rmt are said to have praised the Scotrail deal as a good agreement. The praise is supposed to be on their websites but I haven't found it. It is good news because all those wasteful & annoying 10 to 20 second waits for door release will be gone & longer term journeys can be quicker & perhaps less stock will be needed, saving money, some of which should go to the passengers & taxpayers.
SWT & London Midland can also go to driver door release right now providing they guarantee, as Scotrail did, that they won't be going for proper DOO in their franchise periods.

The impression I have is that the DFT are behind the GTR decision for not being able to adopt the Scotrail model.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I believe it is the mainline, 'Northern Connect' services being targeted. The idea here appears to be growth, and so one might reasonably suggest that it would be a foolish decision to agree DOO now when the trains could easily eventually double in size.

That raises the infrastructural point of the number of stations that will require their platform lengths being extended to allow for the doubling of size of the units that you refer to above.

Looking at the new trains that are on order, what will be the lengths of the various doubled-up train car lengths possibly be?

 

[infobleep]

Due to various issues a friend has just been delayed by an hour. They had to get multiple trains and multiple trains were delayed or cancelled I believe. Could someone please explain to me how an OBS is going to help deal with trains that already run DOO but are being cancelled due to a lack of crew? Aka drivers.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is effectively the old Southern system of operation for the last 15 years that is being moved away from...

3 main issues:
a) Flexibility to run services when there is disruption without a guard rather than cancel, the alternative is to have lots of extra guards and have spare rostered a key locations

b) moving Southern services to Thameslink which will need them to operate 700s with DOO as Southern services pre transfer, hence drivers on "southern" services opening and closing doors outside the metro DOO area during the period (bidders had to have viable plan to do this!).

c) if you are running Thameslink services as DOO to the same stations as Southern why is one DOO and the other not?

Well those problems will occur surely on SWT or any other company running guards and they don't seem to want to go DOO. So why GTR?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk