Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[otomous]

Are non drivers not entitled to an opinion then?

Of course they are. But DOO drivers are arguably in the best place to comment on DOO. If I want to know what it's like being a bus driver, I'll trust a bus driver more than anyone else.

 

[Antman]

Of course they are. But DOO drivers are arguably in the best place to comment on DOO. If I want to know what it's like being a bus driver, I'll trust a bus driver more than anyone else.

And do you think they would give an impartial response without any hint of bias or self interest?

 

[BestWestern]

And do you think they would give an impartial response without any hint of bias or self interest?

In theory, though, there should be a range of bias. Some will look forward to the potential of extra renumeration for doing their job, as well as those who share doubts or reservations about it. In theory...

 

[craigybagel]

And do you think they would give an impartial response without any hint of bias or self interest?

What have they got to gain through being biased here? This is just a forum of enthusiasts, staff and rail users. Nothing we say here is likely to make any difference to what actually happens in this battle.

And at the end of the day, a potentially "biased" driver still knows a lot more about the subject then someone who's never had to press that blue button themselves.....

 

[OliverS]

Of course they are. But DOO drivers are arguably in the best place to comment on DOO. If I want to know what it's like being a bus driver, I'll trust a bus driver more than anyone else.

I disagree. Drivers are best placed to give anecdotal evidence on the effect of DOO on the drivers' role. They are not best placed to give data on the effect of DOO on the whole railway system or the effect of potentially freeing up resource to be used to improve safety elsewhere.

DOO is not just about the drivers, or for that matter the guards. It is about changing the railway system as a whole. Whether that is for the better is a matter of debate.

 

[Antman]

I disagree. Drivers are best placed to give anecdotal evidence on the effect of DOO on the drivers' role. They are not best placed to give data on the effect of DOO on the whole railway system or the effect of potentially freeing up resource to be used to improve safety elsewhere.

DOO is not just about the drivers, or for that matter the guards. It is about changing the railway system as a whole. Whether that is for the better is a matter of debate.

I couldn't have summed it up better.

 

[otomous]

And do you think they would give an impartial response without any hint of bias or self interest?

No. It's impossible for us to be totally objective.

But bear in mind that those seeking to extend DOO aren't objective either. The government and GTR has an agenda to save money and, arguably, weaken the influence of the unions by either ditching or downgrading the guards. Therefore they have only pointed out the advantages, which are...er, still being able to run the train if there's no guard available, and claimed that it is no less safe in terms of dispatch. There hasn't been a proper examination of the issue that I'm aware of - in terms of feedback at work it's been like a brick wall.

What DOO drivers can bring to the debate is their experience of the job which is not being acknowledged or presented by the government, GTR, or most disturbingly, the media - the delays and cancellations caused by the failure of DOO equipment - or just a plain crap view! Or the increased responsibility and liability being imposed on drivers by this which should not be taken lightly.

I like to think I have a balanced view as much as I can. I've said on this forum, doing dispatch off peak myself is far less of an issue than on hugely overcrowded peak trains on crowded platforms. If we are to have an OBS anyway - why can't they switch roles accordingly? And when an issue occurs off peak - cab monitors blown or whatever, they could take over dispatch and the train could still run instead of going out of service.

I will definitely admit to self interest. I don't want to worry about ill passengers or anti social behaviour, I want to concentrate on driving the train, because that does need a lot of concentration. I don't want to turf 1000 angry people off a 12 car train with failed monitors at 8.15am. And I don't wish to go to prison for a manslaughter, or commit an involuntary manslaughter, which results from a dispatch event that I couldn't control.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I disagree. Drivers are best placed to give anecdotal evidence on the effect of DOO on the drivers' role. They are not best placed to give data on the effect of DOO on the whole railway system or the effect of potentially freeing up resource to be used to improve safety elsewhere.

DOO is not just about the drivers, or for that matter the guards. It is about changing the railway system as a whole. Whether that is for the better is a matter of debate.

Doing 100 stops a day is a hell of a lot of ancdotal evidence - more than ANYONE else has. The stats only show you the ones that turned nasty. You won't hear about the near misses. Yet we are told that near misses in terms of driver incidents (stop shorts, wrong side releases, SPADs, take your pick) inevitably lead to a real incident. Why doesn't the same principle apply to dispatch near misses? Perhaps because that would raise all sorts of questions with expensive unwanted answers.

Remember where the extension of DOO comes from. The McNulty Report, commissioned to look at how to save state subsidy to the railway. If there is any money saved it won't be spent elsewhere on the railway, it just won't be spent. On longer distance routes with stops several minutes apart, it was perfectly possible for guards to dispatch the train as well as provide customer service, it's been going on for years. Drivers have always opened the doors on 377s on Southern so it wasn't time consuming as it can be on South West, Northern etc. The process will take potentially take longer because it's often harder to get that clear view all down the side of the train for a driver using monitors than a guard on the platform. Sorry if that's anecdotal, but that's my experience of the reality.

Trains are frequently cancelled, turned back short or run fast because there are no spare drivers or the driver has to take his break or end his shift. This is costly and causes much inconvenience. Why hasn't there been a root and branch overhaul of rostering and recruitment? Because that would likely eat into shareholder dividends because it would raise costs for the TOC and potentially create more union members. There are plenty of changes that could be made to the railway to make things better for the passenger. Losing guards is not one of them but it's great for the TOCS, the shareholders, the DFT etc.

 

[OliverS]

Doing 100 stops a day is a hell of a lot of ancdotal evidence - more than ANYONE else has. The stats only show you the ones that turned nasty. You won't hear about the near misses. Yet we are told that near misses in terms of driver incidents (stop shorts, wrong side releases, SPADs, take your pick) inevitably lead to a real incident. Why doesn't the same principle apply to dispatch near misses? Perhaps because that would raise all sorts of questions with expensive unwanted answers.

Remember where the extension of DOO comes from. The McNulty Report, commissioned to look at how to save state subsidy to the railway. If there is any money saved it won't be spent elsewhere on the railway, it just won't be spent. On longer distance routes with stops several minutes apart, it was perfectly possible for guards to dispatch the train as well as provide customer service, it's been going on for years. Drivers have always opened the doors on 377s on Southern so it wasn't time consuming as it can be on South West, Northern etc. The process will take potentially take longer because it's often harder to get that clear view all down the side of the train for a driver using monitors than a guard on the platform. Sorry if that's anecdotal, but that's my experience of the reality.

Trains are frequently cancelled, turned back short or run fast because there are no spare drivers or the driver has to take his break or end his shift. This is costly and causes much inconvenience. Why hasn't there been a root and branch overhaul of rostering and recruitment? Because that would likely eat into shareholder dividends because it would raise costs for the TOC and potentially create more union members. There are plenty of changes that could be made to the railway to make things better for the passenger. Losing guards is not one of them but it's great for the TOCS, the shareholders, the DFT etc.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is anecdotal. I.e. it isn't good data as it is subject to all the perils of confirmation bias etc. Real data would be lovely but the danger for the TOCs is that it might show that DOO is not safe enough under some circumstances. The worry for the staff and unions is that it might show that it is safe enough under all circumstances. So no-one has the incentive to find out.

Dispatch near misses should be logged. You can't get real data without it, my comments about incentives for logging it are as above. Though you would hope the safety regulator would do something about it.

Cost savings are important. At the highest level, spending money on guards is not spending money on nurses. Focusing on the PTI is missing the point of the DOO debate, it is all about money and it always will be.

 

[otomous]

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is anecdotal. I.e. it isn't good data as it is subject to all the perils of confirmation bias etc. Real data would be lovely but the danger for the TOCs is that it might show that DOO is not safe enough under some circumstances. The worry for the staff and unions is that it might show that it is safe enough under all circumstances. So no-one has the incentive to find out.

Dispatch near misses should be logged. You can't get real data without it, my comments about incentives for logging it are as above. Though you would hope the safety regulator would do something about it.

Cost savings are important. At the highest level, spending money on guards is not spending money on nurses. Focusing on the PTI is missing the point of the DOO debate, it is all about money and it always will be.

I just don't think it's possible for anyone other than a DOO driver who can understand the nature of the near misses I'm talking about. No one has the view of things that we have on the spot at the time. It's unique. What makes you think they aren't logged? Plenty of near misses get reported as they usually cause delays which have to be accounted for. Like I said, you only hear when it turns nasty. Or grisly. Frankly I've got little faith in the safety regulators because I've read their rule books and their reports!

If they wanted to spend more money on nurses, they'd spend it. Don't expect any more nurses in return for guards.

As for PTI missing the point of the debate, it's CENTRAL! It's what is being used to justify DOO being extended, because it's deemed to be no less safe. Apparently there will be OBS people on most of the trains to deal with the other things the guards do so that's not a problem. Except they'll probably be lost in the event of the driver being incapacitated or dead.

But, the driver dying or being incapacitated, a collision, a tree on the line, a fire, a fight, a major breakdown or power failure, well these are all rare events. But every day the driver WILL have to close the doors and leave the platform safely up to 100 times a day, so the PTI is of more significance.

 

[Robertj21a]

I just don't think it's possible for anyone other than a DOO driver who can understand the nature of the near misses I'm talking about. No one has the view of things that we have on the spot at the time. It's unique. What makes you think they aren't logged? Plenty of near misses get reported as they usually cause delays which have to be accounted for. Like I said, you only hear when it turns nasty. Or grisly. Frankly I've got little faith in the safety regulators because I've read their rule books and their reports!

If they wanted to spend more money on nurses, they'd spend it. Don't expect any more nurses in return for guards.

As for PTI missing the point of the debate, it's CENTRAL! It's what is being used to justify DOO being extended, because it's deemed to be no less safe. Apparently there will be OBS people on most of the trains to deal with the other things the guards do so that's not a problem. Except they'll probably be lost in the event of the driver being incapacitated or dead.

But, the driver dying or being incapacitated, a collision, a tree on the line, a fire, a fight, a major breakdown or power failure, well these are all rare events. But every day the driver WILL have to close the doors and leave the platform safely up to 100 times a day, so the PTI is of more significance.

What I don't understand is that I thought Thameslink operates 12-coach trains as DOO ?

 

[Carlisle]

What I don't understand is that I thought Thameslink operates 12-coach trains as DOO ?

I understand Southeastern, C2C, and Greater Anglia also operate some 12 car DOO services

 

[otomous]

What I don't understand is that I thought Thameslink operates 12-coach trains as DOO ?

They do. It was introduced when Thameslink launched in 1988, before the massive rise in traffic for 8 cars max, and recently extended to 12 forcibly by stretching that agreement in a way that the drivers didn't believe was possible. I don't care who else does it, it's still a bad idea to extend it as we are doing now.

 

[Robertj21a]

They do. It was introduced when Thameslink launched in 1988, before the massive rise in traffic for 8 cars max, and recently extended to 12 forcibly by stretching that agreement in a way that the drivers didn't believe was possible. I don't care who else does it, it's still a bad idea to extend it as we are doing now.

.......but I think that's only where this thread began - over 400 pages ago !!

 

[OliverS]

I just don't think it's possible for anyone other than a DOO driver who can understand the nature of the near misses I'm talking about. No one has the view of things that we have on the spot at the time. It's unique. What makes you think they aren't logged? Plenty of near misses get reported as they usually cause delays which have to be accounted for. Like I said, you only hear when it turns nasty. Or grisly. Frankly I've got little faith in the safety regulators because I've read their rule books and their reports!

If they wanted to spend more money on nurses, they'd spend it. Don't expect any more nurses in return for guards.

As for PTI missing the point of the debate, it's CENTRAL! It's what is being used to justify DOO being extended, because it's deemed to be no less safe. Apparently there will be OBS people on most of the trains to deal with the other things the guards do so that's not a problem. Except they'll probably be lost in the event of the driver being incapacitated or dead.

But, the driver dying or being incapacitated, a collision, a tree on the line, a fire, a fight, a major breakdown or power failure, well these are all rare events. But every day the driver WILL have to close the doors and leave the platform safely up to 100 times a day, so the PTI is of more significance.

I agree, drivers have a unique viewpoint to log issues. I though you had said that near misses in the PTI weren't logged the same way as SPADs.

The reason that PTI is not the whole debate is that we are talking about where best to invest money in safety. Is it best to invest in the PTI or is it best to invest somewhere else. Only when it has been decided to invest in the PTI then you discuss whether Guards are the best investment. So no, PTI is not central, it is all about where to spend limited money to achieve best results in the railway, or for the Government if you want to look wider (for instance to drive down the cost of the railway to the taxpayer).

 

[swt class 450]

I understand Southeastern, C2C, and Greater Anglia also operate some 12 car DOO services

C2C do not operate any 12 coach DOO services. All of their 12 coach trains have a Guard on board (only the 4 and 8 coach trains are DOO).

 

[Class377/5]

They do. It was introduced when Thameslink launched in 1988, before the massive rise in traffic for 8 cars max, and recently extended to 12 forcibly by stretching that agreement in a way that the drivers didn't believe was possible. I don't care who else does it, it's still a bad idea to extend it as we are doing now.

That's not actually true. DOO was agreed on 8 cars when Thameslink launched with guards on the BML all stations IIRC.

Howeveer 12 car working was not agreed with the unions until 2011 when under the TGN franchise (better known as FCC) the running of 12 car services was signed off by union and company.

So the unions have agreed 12 car working in the last five years folks on the BML using modern stock.

Claiming the agreement was forced is interesting. How was it forced, I'd like to see some evidence as the unions signed it off in December 2011.

 

[grumblingalong]

https://twitter.com/keep_the_guard/status/797190416911237120

Link shows GTR issued brief confirming that OBS/ACs must now use a local door to check for passengers to assist.

All of this and what have GTR now acheived?

 

[cjmillsnun]

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

Ahh technology, our saviour. Also something that has allowed 1 person to be the signaller for many miles with many trains. Many old fashioned signal boxes were extremely busy. Now look at signalling centres... Guess how buys they are!

I'll give you a clue. On today's railway many trains don't reach the signal in the time you would expect. Every time you hear that trains are delayed on the travel news that means trains are running or have been running slower than usual. To place a signalling centre on high alert for every occurrence would mean that they would be on almost constant high alert. It's not even remotely practicable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed but as a passenger and not having access to either cab, this would not be an option to me

And there is the crux of the argument.

You don't have access to either cab, so no access to TC clips to place signals on the other line to danger, or to the GSMR in the back cab to contact the signaller. You're not PTS trained, don't know the route in terms of linespeed or exactly where you are, don't know what to look for to find that information. Don't know the train's headcode, don't know where there is an SPT in case the GSMR doesn't work.

A guard will. Someone on the train knowing that information could save your life.

 

[Dave1987]

https://twitter.com/keep_the_guard/status/797190416911237120

Link shows GTR issued brief confirming that OBS/ACs must now use a local door to check for passengers to assist.

All of this and what have GTR now acheived?

Wow the wheel turns eh!

 

[Chrisgr31]

https://twitter.com/keep_the_guard/status/797190416911237120

Link shows GTR issued brief confirming that OBS/ACs must now use a local door to check for passengers to assist.

All of this and what have GTR now acheived?

Well the OBS is not actually operating the doors, nor are they checking that no one is trapped in the doors, their role is to merely ensure there is no one to assist.

So presumably they get to the station, abandon whoever they are assisting on board the train, and go to the nearest door say at the back of the train. Wait until the driver has opened it, put their key in it to lock it open, get out and see someone at the other end of the train who may need help. Go down to them and find they don't need help, then return to the door they exited from to remove their key?

 

[grumblingalong]

Well the OBS is not actually operating the doors, nor are they checking that no one is trapped in the doors, their role is to merely ensure there is no one to assist.

So presumably they get to the station, abandon whoever they are assisting on board the train, and go to the nearest door say at the back of the train. Wait until the driver has opened it, put their key in it to lock it open, get out and see someone at the other end of the train who may need help. Go down to them and find they don't need help, then return to the door they exited from to remove their key?

So, you know, like their conductors did? All of this argument and disruption to the travelling public, sold as giving the on board staff more time with those on board now won't.

 

[plymothian]

So, you know, like their conductors did? All of this argument and disruption to the travelling public, sold as giving the on board staff more time with those on board now won't.

Basically yeah, sounds the same - which was my argument about 200 odd pages ago.

 

[Chrisgr31]

So, you know, like their conductors did? All of this argument and disruption to the travelling public, sold as giving the on board staff more time with those on board now won't.

It's not quite like the conductor is it? The conductor could take his key with him couldn't he and therefore rejoin from a different door? So avoiding the need to walk all the back?

Mind you still not sure why the passengers need all this attention, well other than Southern want to sell them full priced tickets

 

[physics34]

https://twitter.com/keep_the_guard/status/797190416911237120

Link shows GTR issued brief confirming that OBS/ACs must now use a local door to check for passengers to assist.

All of this and what have GTR now acheived?

Its still the last sentence that opens up a can of worms.....

What if they decide to get rid of the OBSs?!

 

[Carlisle]

C2C do not operate any 12 coach DOO services. All of their 12 coach trains have a Guard on board (only the 4 and 8 coach trains are DOO).

Ok but it had been explained on here previously that C2C were extending DOO to 12 cars or has that plan now been scrapped ?

 

[redbutton]

Well the OBS is not actually operating the doors, nor are they checking that no one is trapped in the doors, their role is to merely ensure there is no one to assist.

So presumably they get to the station, abandon whoever they are assisting on board the train, and go to the nearest door say at the back of the train. Wait until the driver has opened it, put their key in it to lock it open, get out and see someone at the other end of the train who may need help. Go down to them and find they don't need help, then return to the door they exited from to remove their key?

Also the procedure with an OBS is they have to verbally contact the driver on the cab-to-cab before putting their key on, unless that has changed and nobody has briefed us drivers. (Wouldn't be the first time in this whole mess)

I can just imagine the scenario: OBS doesn't contact driver, puts key on to hold local door, starts walking down platform. Driver sees clear PTI, closes doors (except isolated local door). OBS determines pax needs assistance, but has to walk back to the local door to ask driver to rerelease, and this time to please keep doors open UFN so OBS can take his key off, walk to the pax, put key on, help pax, take key off, contact driver, and go.

All in the name of "operational efficiency", eh?

Not to mention that if the company didn't bother to cover the OBS diagram that day, the pax needing assistance would simply be left on the platform unless he manages to get the driver's attention in the cameras.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wow the wheel turns eh!

That's a *bit* like Swiss pseudo-DOO (where the driver gets RA before the doors are closed, and has to look back in a mirror to ensure that they are before actually going, which must be rather difficult on a long set on a curved platform as the mirrors are very small). As there is (or was until a couple of years ago, there have been some changes) no interlock on Swiss hauled coaches this, predictably, results in trains departing with doors open. A very flawed method of operation indeed.

If they are going to do that (SN already had driver-released doors, didn't they?) I fail to see any benefit over traditional guarded operation whatsoever, and a number of possible disadvantages. Other than that SN can be stubborn and say they won, of course.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

As was the case with the London Underground attacks a few years ago

that's the FBU mentality and the way in which trumpton work ...

despite allegedly being 'professionals' worth 30 K (at 2002 prices) firefighters can;t cross the road without a 'grown up' present ... compared to the responsiblities routinely shouldered by PCs, Paramedics , IHCD ambulance technicians and RNs

 

[Bletchleyite]

The driver knows the train is accommodated if the stop mark is in his/her side window.

Unless he's forgotten he's got a 12-car set and has stopped at the 4 or 8-car stop sign, and left the back end of the train hanging off the platform.

The guard is a secondary check to this. It surprises me that the driver isn't required (or even able) to do that secondary check using the CCTV.

 

[redbutton]

Unless he's forgotten he's got a 12-car set and has stopped at the 4 or 8-car stop sign, and left the back end of the train hanging off the platform.

The guard is a secondary check to this. It surprises me that the driver isn't required (or even able) to do that secondary check using the CCTV.

Indeed, stop-shorts happen all the time. But on SN the drivers release the doors with no guard input, so there's nothing the guard can do to stop the driver's mistake. He can only mitigate the risk by immediately closing the doors, probably before the driver is even aware of what happened.