Annoying 10 or 20 second delays waiting for doors to open? I hardly notice any delay on most occasions when waiting for doors to open, and certainly on the scheme of things 10 or 20 seconds is nothing as we usually spend more than that in the middle of nowhere.
-
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
Annoying 10 or 20 second delays waiting for doors to open? I hardly notice any delay on most occasions when waiting for doors to open, and certainly on the scheme of things 10 or 20 seconds is nothing as we usually spend more than that in the middle of nowhere.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It's a very common cause of long dwell time at almost all northern stations. The only current solution really is for the guard not to walk through the train, which is what a lot of them do.
craigybagel
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 5,829
And the longest time I've ever spent waiting for doors to open was on London Overground's DOO services! And most of the delays experienced on occasion at Northern could be fixed if they did what was done at ATW, EMT and GWR (or quite possibly their predecessors) and had extra door panels on their units instead of making the guard run back to the back door every time
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
A is bollox. The idea that every day massive disruption occurs because trains in all corners of the land are sat waiting for errant Guards is a complete nonsense, dreamed up by the DOO propagada machine. Much like the idea that Guards are all off sick, or the suggestion that OBS is a customer service enhancement, or a permanent job role.
The reason is to save money. That's it.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
If ASLEF members at Northern decide they really do want to resist DOO then I very much doubt that they would make concessions based on train length. Given there is currently no DOO then any dispute would certainly be based on keeping it that way ie as a matter of principle.
This tale of repeated delays waiting for guards to release doors is frankly nonsense. The reality is that prior to releasing doors the guard is required to confirm that the the train is fully and safely accommodated at the platform. After James Street Northern tightened up its platform procedures. This included an instruction that guards carrying out this check were required to step onto the platform to confirm all was well and only then to release the doors. Delays generally occur when a guard gets overly involved in ticket sales, whether deliberately or not, and is also not helped by the limited availability of door control panels.
Drivers releasing doors, without then closing them, sounds attractive to an extent. But are they able to carry out the "accommodation" check? This could be a particular issue for platforms on the right-hand side of the train where the driver may very well have a restricted view of the platform during arrival. Do bodyside cameras switch on when the train drops below a certain speed (which, if true, must be a little irritating at inter-station signal stops) or are they only triggered by release of the doors? Perhaps a DOO driver could confirm. One advantage of a guard carrying out the "accommodation" check is they are much less likely to be caught out by a stopped short situation. Ideally if drivers are to release doors, whether under DOO or not, their trains ought to be fitted with both ASDO (Automatic Selective Door Operation) and CSDE (Correct Side Door Enabling) equipment which also requires track mounted beacons. But of course we are currently in a period mercifully free of significant train accidents so there is less focus on spending money to actually improve safety.
SWT probably have less delays due to waiting for guards during disruption because for most diagrams now the driver and guard spend the whole shift together, working the same trains. So if you have a driver, you should have a guard since they work the same trains and have breaks at the same time in the same places. There are planned to be spare guards at various locations around the network too to cover for late notice sickness etc.
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,636
Agreed... if last nights disruption was anything to go by!
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
What fun and games happened last night?!
!Three issues caused a friend to be delayed over an hour last night: Broken train cause of first delay. Train crew shortage cause of second delay. Trespassers cause of the third.
Now the third one would occur DOO or otherwise. Number 2 would occur DOO or otherwise, if the crew member was a driver. Again number 1 would occur DOO or otherwise.
See pattern emerging there.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Now the third one would occur DOO or otherwise. Number 2 would occur DOO or otherwise, if the crew member was a driver. Again number 1 would occur DOO or otherwise.
See pattern emerging there.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Deepgreen
Established Member
Not sure what your point is here, but the failed train might have been repairable/operable by/with a guard aboard, but, as I don't know what the problem was, it's impossible to say.
However, I don't see the connection between three random and unrelated incidents and the wider issue of DOO, with the myriad other possible scenarios where a guard might be of help.
My point is, getting rid of the guard won't stop delays and cancellations and having a guard might actually be useful for the many reasons outlined in this thread.
GTR said in the past that cancellations and other issues were caused by guard sickness but whilst that might have been the case for some, it's not always the lack of a guard that is the issue.
They cannot run a train without a driver for example. ASLEF can't be blamed for a lack of drivers, surely.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Deepgreen
Established Member
Even GTR, in their most desperate hours, have never claimed that all cancellations are caused by guards not being available! I don't think it has ever been in any doubt that there are countless reasons for cancellation/delay that are outwith the arena of crewing.
No but they have given the impression guards are at fault. You don't see publicity saying we are cancelling services because they have not employed or recruited enough staff.
The idea of the DOO was it could run without guard in times of disruption. Well it can't run if no driver or trespass or failes unit. So why not just keep the guard. They can help out in times of disruption m
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Deepgreen
Established Member
I think this has hit the buffers! I think we all agree that a trespass incident such as this would be just as disruptive with or without guards. It has never been claimed by any source that I have seen that trains could run under DOO when the lines are closed.
No it hasn't but all sources of disruption should be taken into account when working out how much difference not having a guard would make to disruption overall. I suspect the reason for disruption is more likely to be something other than due to lacking a guard. Thus getting rid of a guard won't improve things much from a disruption point of view.
Someone fell from the platform at West Norwood tonight. I hope they are OK.
I don't know anymore than that but I'd like to think that a guard was around to help. Certainly the train to Guildford has one. I don't know if it occurred when this train was in the platform or whilst it was waiting for a platform to be free there.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
tsr
Established Member
Evening peak services to Guildford would not normally have conductors onboard between Victoria / London Bridge and West Croydon. Selhurst conductors work Southern services to Guildford and usually meet the train at West Croydon or Sutton. Occasionally this may be varied to Selhurst Depot, Epsom or Leatherhead, as circumstances dictate, but rarely do they ever go into London to pick up those trains. Some of the return journeys from Guildford are a different matter.
In terms of routine operations, other than a few early morning services, or during overnight / weekend diversions, conductors do not generally work trains via West Norwood. Even those do not usually call there.
The driver knows the train is accommodated if the stop mark is in his/her side window. On Electrostars, the monitors do not activate until a few seconds after door release.
Partially due to the myriad of formation lengths on the same routes (many stations have multiple stop marks), stop shorts and wrong side releases happen all the time. SDO and CSDE are cutting down on this, but older BR-era stock doesn't have these systems and so it's all up to the driver to ensure the train is stopped at the correct mark and the correct side is released.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
Thanks for the information.
(my bold)
Yet such incidents are rare on non-DOO services simply because the guard effectively has to physically confirm that there is a platform where they expect one to be. Perhaps the unions should be pushing for a ban on DOO where ASDO and CSDE are not present...
Deepgreen
Established Member
The 0831 Redhill to Victoria was lightly loaded today (Trump depression, perhaps) and the first class was at the back (a 377/6 as usual). Several 'standards' plonked themselves down in the first seats they saw, but the guard/conductor/OBS was yet again nowhere to be seen for the entire journey.
It occurred to me that, if the role of guards is really primarily one of safety (and I don't dispute that), then why do guards not always situate themselves at the rear of the train, which is their traditional location to provide a staff presence at the end of the train opposite to the driver. When, as in the case of this morning's working, the first class is also at the rear, this would easily allow safety and ticket checking considerations to be satisfied.
I have to say, given the seemingly almost wilful absence of visible guards over the last several months, they are slowly but surely destroying their cause in the eyes of the public. The RMT should have advised them to become as high profile as possible during this dispute, not hide away. The union has handled this situation depressingly badly through its dire public campaigning stance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It occurred to me that, if the role of guards is really primarily one of safety (and I don't dispute that), then why do guards not always situate themselves at the rear of the train, which is their traditional location to provide a staff presence at the end of the train opposite to the driver. When, as in the case of this morning's working, the first class is also at the rear, this would easily allow safety and ticket checking considerations to be satisfied.
I have to say, given the seemingly almost wilful absence of visible guards over the last several months, they are slowly but surely destroying their cause in the eyes of the public. The RMT should have advised them to become as high profile as possible during this dispute, not hide away. The union has handled this situation depressingly badly through its dire public campaigning stance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Last edited:
Precisely, Deepgreen.
The only way to have won this was to have motivated the public to launch a "save our guards' campaign, writing to our MPs etc, because we value the customer service.
My reading of the mood in the region is that even if people understand the safety point, they demote the tiny risk of an incident beneath the risk of losing a job, etc, through not being able to get to work on time regularly. So the customer service point was vital if the RMT wanted commuters as allies. I think that fight has been lost.
The only way to have won this was to have motivated the public to launch a "save our guards' campaign, writing to our MPs etc, because we value the customer service.
My reading of the mood in the region is that even if people understand the safety point, they demote the tiny risk of an incident beneath the risk of losing a job, etc, through not being able to get to work on time regularly. So the customer service point was vital if the RMT wanted commuters as allies. I think that fight has been lost.
Deepgreen
Established Member
I think the 'customer service' point is the main one being made by GTR through their insistence that OBSs will be more visible and 'customer-focused' than guards. There would be no point in the RMT using this element in their case, but their safety argument has been feeble so far, which is where they fall down, sadly. Unfortunately for them, the long-standing and very widespread use of DOO makes it very hard to make a strong safety-based argument for not extending its use, let alone attempting to revert to guard operation where DOO already exists (which must be the logical extension of the safety argument).
Hasn't this dispute in reality now more or less moved on from the RMT trying to win the various safety/customer service arguments alone and outright towards a test of how significant a game changer any action from the drivers proves to be assuming a yes vote by ASLEF
Last edited:
I fear that's just naive. The decision to remove guards was made by the DFT and supported by GTR. It was already known that passengers wanted guards but this was ignored. How would you feel in their shoes? Enthusiastic about your job and determined to enforce first class? What's the point when the writing's already on the wall? Striking is about all that's left to you.
You make it sound like they're about to be sacked. Even if you believe that there is no long-term future for the OBS, they have a job until at least 2021. There isn't an excuse for neglecting parts of your role simply because one duty is being taken away for no loss in pay. It is counter-productive.
It cuts both ways. You don't encourage loyalty in your staff by threatening their jobs, vindictively removing their passes, then rubbishing them in the press.
The RMT had pretty much chosen this fight before any of those GTR threats actually took place by signing the joint declaration against any further DOO/ DCO with ASLEF last year then refusing to negotiate any further
Last edited:
- Status