Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Shaw S Hunter]

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.

Hence my earlier point that perhaps the fitting of ASDO and CSDE should be a pre-requisite for any driver involvement in door operation, whether DOO or not.

 

[swt class 450]

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

I am not entirely sure when or if that is still happening. At the moment they employ 16 Guards to operate the four morning Westbound 12 coach trains and the six evening Eastbound 12 coach trains. With GTRs DOO plans not being very succesful it would probably be very unwise for C2C to try to get rid of them on their few 12 coach trains. But who knows what will actually happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hence my earlier point that perhaps the fitting of ASDO and CSDE should be a pre-requisite for any driver involvement in door operation, whether DOO or not.

Or just CCTV.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Carlisle]

I am not entirely sure when or if that is still happening. At the moment they employ 16 Guards to operate the four morning Westbound 12 coach trains and the six evening Eastbound 12 coach trains. With GTRs DOO plans not being very succesful it would probably be very unwise for C2C to try to get rid of them on their few 12 coach trains. But who knows what will actually happen.

Oh right , thanks for the update on the current situation there

 

[HH]

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.

And? If it's not the driver, it will be a guard. Someone always has to take a decision on closing the doors and human decisions are prone to the occasional error. The question is possibly whether drivers or guards are more likely to make one.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Or just CCTV.

CCTV by itself cannot prevent doors being opened which are not actually at the platform. To achieve that automatically requires ASDO and CSDE. And current train-mounted CCTV only activates as the doors are released.

And? If it's not the driver, it will be a guard. Someone always has to take a decision on closing the doors and human decisions are prone to the occasional error. The question is possibly whether drivers or guards are more likely to make one.

Correct. And precious little study, it would seem, on the reality of this question. However drivers are working with a high degree of concentration the whole time their train is moving, hence the number of comments from drivers about the increased workload brought about by DOO. You will find non-DOO drivers often use station stops as an opportunity to stand and stretch their legs and using that change in physical position to reset their concentration. Little chance of that with DOO. Equally a guard is only undertaking safety critical work (normally) at station stops and has the time between stations to reset that particular focus. Indeed the combination of safety critical door operation with more relaxed (most of the time) interaction with passengers is what makes it such a rewarding job. Not that DOO supporters think that any of the foregoing is relevant.

 

[BestWestern]

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?

No, the OBS is operating the local door at which they are standing. This latest comedy sketch from the GTR Muppet Show really does take the p*ss. You have a bloke putting a door key into the DKS and energising the door panel, directly affecting the dispatch process. They are solely responsible for closing that door. If an incident occurs at that door, it can only be down the OBS - they are in charge of that door. To suggest that OBS is a 'no responsibility' role, and then have them playing with door panels, is frankly beyond belief, even for the desperately incompetent idiots who are GTR. I trust both unions will advise them in rather clear terms that this won't be happening. Go away and start again. Morons.

 

[Barn]

I'm not sure conceptually why one can't have a role which is safety responsible and fully trained but which is not critical for the operation of the train.

So if the OBS handles a local door he/she should be fully trained to so. But if he/she isn't present, the problem goes away and that door is treated the same way as the other 23 sets of doors.

 

[RichardKing]

But if he/she isn't present, the problem goes away and that door is treated the same way as the other 23 sets of doors.

And then when a disabled customer is waiting to board a train without an OBS at an unmanned station? Is it acceptable to just leave them on the platform until a train arrives with an OBS, or should the driver, who's already has his/her workload increased with DOO dispatch, have to get out of their cab - after spending a good 5 minutes securing it - and assist this customer onto the train (and off, if they wish to alight at another unmanned station)?

And don't suggest booking assisted travel - that barely works now!

 

[Barn]

And then when a disabled customer is waiting to board a train without an OBS at an unmanned station? Is it acceptable to just leave them on the platform until a train arrives with an OBS, or should the driver, who's already has his/her workload increased with DOO dispatch, have to get out of their cab - after spending a good 5 minutes securing it - and assist this customer onto the train (and off, if they wish to alight at another unmanned station)?

And don't suggest booking assisted travel - that barely works now!

Agreed, but that's a different question to safety criticality.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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?

and incidents occur on trains with guards / conductors who are safety critical staff...

it does not change thath fact that hundreds if not thousands of trains run on NR metal as DOO , plus the whoe of the underground , T+W Metro etc...

 

[Carlisle]

No, the OBS is operating the local door at which they are standing. This latest comedy sketch from the GTR Muppet Show really does take the p*ss. You have a bloke putting a door key into the DKS and energising the door panel, directly affecting the dispatch process. They are solely responsible for closing that door. If an incident occurs at that door, it can only be down the OBS - they are in charge of that door. To suggest that OBS is a 'no responsibility' role, and then have them playing with door panels, is frankly beyond belief, even for the desperately incompetent idiots who are GTR. I trust both unions will advise them in rather clear terms that this won't be happening. Go away and start again. Morons.

isn't an incident like you describe in reality much much more likely to occur on any train fitted with time delayed automatically closing power doors catching passengers out, so better to disable all those first

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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.

so you are of the view that organisations exist to employ union members rather than deliver service ?

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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.

AKA shroud waving and lies to try and preserve the Trades unions ability to circumvent good business practice and democratic process .

the fundamental problem with Trades Union movement in the UK is the way in which it is riddled with trots and entryists ... funny how elswhwre in Europe where htrades unions are not associated with Entryism the relationship between employers and trades unions is much more productive

 

[Don King]

AKA shroud waving and lies to try and preserve the Trades unions ability to circumvent good business practice and democratic process .

the fundamental problem with tTrades Union movement in the uK is the way in which it is riddled with trots and entryists ...

So why has the Conservative MP Peter Bottomley repeatedly signed Early Day Motions supporting guards on trains? Why are my UKIP voting colleagues anti DOO?

Why did First Group and GNER agree with the unions in 2003 over the guards' role?

Fact is you have made zero arguments and just ranted on about "trots" as though a few SWP soap dodging police haters have anything to do with the concerns of rail staff, rail managers, even many directors, passengers, the wider public and disability groups.

A fair number of my colleagues in the guard, driving and station staff grades have previously served in the armed forces or police, are in the unions, attend branch meetings and write to the ASLEF journal both with positive comments and criticism, and are anti DOO based on their first hand railway experience Are these the "trots" you are on about? To join ASLEF you have to be a qualified driver or in the line of promotion to the footplate grade. The average SWP paper seller is not getting in.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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.

perhaps if the job holder in question is a Statutory registered professional who runs the risk of professional sanction if they express a view which is counter to the evidence ...

but when we are talking about semi skilled and technician staff in heavily unionsied industries still ridden with the old -school public sector mindset ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So why has the Conservative MP Peter Bottomley repeatedly signed Early Day Motions supporting guards on trains? Why are my UKIP voting colleagues anti DOO?

Why did First Group and GNER agree with the unions in 2003 over the guards' role?

Fact is you have made zero arguments and just ranted on about "trots" as though a few SWP soap dodging police haters have anything to do with the concerns of rail staff, rail managers, even many directors, passengers, the wider public and disability groups.

if you are so blind as to be unable to see the presence of entryists and Trotskyites among the activists of the trades union movement then there really is no hope for you ... given that there a trades unions who consider even Crobyn Labour under the longest suicide note in history II to be too right wing ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which has what to do with railway operations?

And I actually trust the FBU / Unison / Police Federation / POA over the corporate slashers in the Tories, the politically correct hand wringers in the Liberals and previous Labour government, and those who have sold their soul to reach the top, rather than use their previous knowledge and experience.

The role of guard is laid down in the rule book. If Chris McGhee was not safety critical why did he go to prison? I'll trust the experience of my colleagues, my union and my management over your opinion. The fact of the matter is we know better than you.

Unison are deluded , every campaign they have run in the nHS is based in utter utter bull**** , they claim that the other professional representative organisations not joining them in their delusion are i nthe pocket of the establishment ... but no the other professional representative organisations are run by professionals , not entryist porters, bottle washers and ambulance drivers with delusions of intellectual prowess .

as for the FBU least said

the fed and the POA do have a point with current campaigns but their anger is directed at the wrong people ... as the lay managers haven;t been cut in proprtion ot losses of operational and operational support staff ... because the turkeys don't vote for christmas , they hand out flyers saying ' try Gammon this year ...'

 

[Don King]

perhaps if the job holder in question is a Statutory registered professional who runs the risk of professional sanction if they express a view which is counter to the evidence ...

but when we are talking about semi skilled and technician staff in heavily unionsied industries still ridden with the old -school public sector mindset ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


if you are so blind as to be unable to see the presence of entryists and Trotskyites among the activists of the trades union movement then there really is no hope for you ... given that there a trades unions who consider even Crobyn Labour under the longest suicide note in history II to be too right wing ...

What has opposition to DOO got to do with Corbyn or the "red menace"?

Yet again you have made zero arguments and just ranted on like McCarthy about "reds under the bed", despite the fact I have pointed out that a Conservative MP, UKIP voting colleagues and that many rail managers and directors are opposed to DOO. Hardly just the far left.

Incidentally who shares ASLEF's stance on Brexit, free trade deals, job offshoring, aggression with Russia, the minimum wage and hedge fund tax avoidance, and made them part of his election campaign? Jeremy Corbyn? Well may be he did. But who else?

That well known Trotskyite Donald Trump.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

no the other professional representative organisations are run by professionals , not entryist porters, bottle washers and ambulance drivers with delusions of intellectual prowess .

And here we come to the crux of it. You have utter contempt for working class people and believe their opinions and experience are of no value.

Your comment speaks for itself.

 

[BestWestern]

isn't an incident like you describe in reality much much more likely to occur on any train fitted with time delayed automatically closing power doors catching passengers out, so better to disable all those first

No, those doors will reopen in the event that there's something in the way, and a passenger has the option of hitting the buttons to reopen it themselves. In the OBS example, the doors have already been locked and will not reopen.

The issue here is really rather obvious; staff operating train doors are doing a safety critical task and should quite clearly be competent as such. This is a new low in the GTR saga, patently attempting to shortcut their way around the Rulebook by pretending staff are not in the position that they quite obviously are.

so you are of the view that organisations exist to employ union members rather than deliver service ?

I am of the view that people are entitled to do their best to defend their employment against nasty hatchet job cost cutting of the very worst kind.

As somebody has already pointed out, your shiny white hat has nil relevance to safety management on the railways. A very different subject. We don't have a Silver Commander, we have frontline staff who are required to deal with a wide array of unplanned incidents and emergencies, without the immediate back up of the on-site cavalry. Oh, and our incidents aren't "pre-planned", either. And try telling those who have had limbs ripped off in dispatch accidents that the matter isn't "genuinely life critical".

The fact that you appear to think the views of the frontline staff carrying out these roles is irrelevant because they aren't professionals of a certain accredited type, pretty much sums up the worth of your opinions I'm afraid. I'd have expected such a highly qualified and important person to have a decent grasp of basic grammar, I have to say, but that's a tad off-topic. Alas, arrogance, even of the very highest order, doesn't compensate for being ignorant of the details, Commander.

 

[Stow]

As somebody has already pointed out, your shiny white hat has nil relevance to safety management on the railways. A very different subject. We don't have a Silver Commander, we have frontline staff who are required to deal with a wide array of unplanned incidents and emergencies, without the immediate back up of the on-site cavalry. Oh, and our incidents aren't "pre-planned", either. And try telling those who have had limbs ripped off in dispatch accidents that the matter isn't "genuinely life critical".

The railway has a well established Gold/Silver/Bronze command structure for incident management, i can assure you that these roles and the responsibilities that they have are very significant. I could name numerous occasions on which these roles take direct responsibility for the safe operation of the railway in such circumstances. Suggesting that there is not parallel is somewhat niaive I'd say.

 

[Barn]

The issue here is really rather obvious; staff operating train doors are doing a safety critical task and should quite clearly be competent as such. This is a new low in the GTR saga, patently attempting to shortcut their way around the Rulebook by pretending staff are not in the position that they quite obviously are.

Can I just make sure I understand this (out of genuine interest) because I think the word 'critical' seems to mean multiple things which can get conflated?

Clearly when there is an OBS using the staff controls as a door, his/her actions are 'critical' to the safe operation of the train and it is 'critical' that he/she is fully trained and competent to do so. I doubt that's in any dispute.

But often the phrase 'safety critical' has another meaning, which is that the very presence of this person is critical for the safe operation of the train and the train simply cannot enter service without them.

Isn't GTR saying that the staff are not 'safety critical' (i.e. the train can operate DOO) but they will be fully safety trained so when they are present (which should be the norm) they will be fully competent to perform their tasks?

We have hundreds of pages of people disagreeing on whether this is the best course of action, but you are suggesting that this position is entirely illogical, and I'm struggling to see that.

 

[BestWestern]

Can I just make sure I understand this (out of genuine interest) because I think the word 'critical' seems to mean multiple things which can get conflated?

Clearly when there is an OBS using the staff controls as a door, his/her actions are 'critical' to the safe operation of the train and it is 'critical' that he/she is fully trained and competent to do so. I doubt that's in any dispute.

But often the phrase 'safety critical' has another meaning, which is that the very presence of this person is critical for the safe operation of the train and the train simply cannot enter service without them.

Isn't GTR saying that the staff are not 'safety critical' (i.e. the train can operate DOO) but they will be fully safety trained so when they are present (which should be the norm) they will be fully competent to perform their tasks?

We have hundreds of pages of people disagreeing on whether this is the best course of action, but you are suggesting that this position is entirely illogical, and I'm struggling to see that.

It's pretty clear, and GTR know that! 'Safety Critical' relates to any task which has safety implications should it go wrong. Keying into a train door control panel and closing an external door being an example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The railway has a well established Gold/Silver/Bronze command structure for incident management, i can assure you that these roles and the responsibilities that they have are very significant. I could name numerous occasions on which these roles take direct responsibility for the safe operation of the railway in such circumstances. Suggesting that there is not parallel is somewhat niaive I'd say.

My comparison was with the immediate aftermath of a rail accident, which is dealt with by the traincrew on scene, as opposed to mph77's 'pre-planned' and presumably well staffed event scenario. The railway structure you mention takes shape only after the incident has happened and the relevant people are mobilised accordingly. In the immediate situation it is the staff member initially dealing with the incident who is the designated person in charge, nobody else.

 

[wfrank]

Why did First Group and GNER agree with the unions in 2003 over the guards' role?

Because out of the blue the RMT threatened an all out strike unless the two companies,& I think one other,agreed to keep their guards for the franchise duration. Pure duress.

 

[Barn]

It's pretty clear, and GTR know that! 'Safety Critical' relates to any task which has safety implications should it go wrong. Keying into a train door control panel and closing an external door being an example.

So, forgive my slowness then, have GTR ever said or implied that OBS staff won't be fully trained in how to close that external door safely?

 

[Carlisle]

Why did First Group and GNER agree with the unions in 2003 over the guards' role?

Because out of the blue the RMT threatened an all out strike unless the two companies,& I think one other,agreed to keep their guards for the franchise duration. Pure duress.

Your right, its likely to have been mostly a prudent financial decision by top level management at the time to avoid the potential damage a strike could cause to their revenue stream and brand image etc, DFT had little interest in DOO extensions then so compensation for lost revenue probably wouldn't have been forthcoming

 

[Domeyhead]

Shhh - don't confuse him with actual real world facts - it goes against his frothing at the mouth agenda based on information he gets from the Daily Mail and Katie Hopkins on LBC...

That kind of puerile insult has a habit of backfiring - as it has done with me. As a passenger whose own simple desire to use the railway to get somewhere, rather than to join it as a "Movement" (now there's an oxymoron for you) - I notice that the rail industry already has several layers of safety checking built in to its structure to look after my interests, and does not consider a body such as the RMT with a clear vested duality of interest in the jobs and wages of its members - is fit and proper to be a permanent, objective part of the that structure. If DOO is unsafe it won't happen - only it has done, and it is, as far as I can see. Nothing is without risk but all your arguments merely seem to translate one use case of potential human error by guards into another slightly different, use case of human error by drivers. Perhaps we should have a whole phalanx of guards on every train, to stand by every single door, each operating their door and their door alone? What I really can't stand in this is union members claiming to be acting in the interests of the passenger while treating the passenger - ie me and thousands of others like me trying to keep our jobs and families - with complete indifference and even contempt. Just a little less hypocrisy would be nice.

 

[Deepgreen]

It seems to me that there are two logical possible courses of action based on the issue of safety:

1. DOO in principle is declared safe by whichever independent assessing bodies are/have been appointed to decide, and it is applied throughout the rest of the network in phases, with any possible specific exclusions being set out by the assessors.

2. DOO is declared unsafe through the same channels, and is therefore not only not pursued any further, but is also rescinded where it already operates.

Any other outcomes of the current situation, using the safety issue alone, would be compromises. While that is not to say they won't happen, they will not be based on logic. I don't pretend to be able to forecast which way it will go, but I suspect there won't be a logical outcome.

 

[al78]

That kind of puerile insult has a habit of backfiring - as it has done with me. As a passenger whose own simple desire to use the railway to get somewhere, rather than to join it as a "Movement" (now there's an oxymoron for you) - I notice that the rail industry already has several layers of safety checking built in to its structure to look after my interests, and does not consider a body such as the RMT with a clear vested duality of interest in the jobs and wages of its members - is fit and proper to be a permanent, objective part of the that structure. If DOO is unsafe it won't happen - only it has done, and it is, as far as I can see. Nothing is without risk but all your arguments merely seem to translate one use case of potential human error by guards into another slightly different, use case of human error by drivers. Perhaps we should have a whole phalanx of guards on every train, to stand by every single door, each operating their door and their door alone? What I really can't stand in this is union members claiming to be acting in the interests of the passenger while treating the passenger - ie me and thousands of others like me trying to keep our jobs and families - with complete indifference and even contempt. Just a little less hypocrisy would be nice.

If the sociopathic elite that we, as a society, seem to love elevating to positions of power and responsibility, didn't periodically try to stomp and railroad over others, there wouldn't be any need for strike action, or the associated inconvenience to the general public. People are not striking for the fun of it, they are striking because they feel the decisions being made by the big chiefs are wrong in a big way, and they are not listening to the concerns of the workforce at the front end. Therefore, don't take your frustration out on the unions, take it out on those who have motivated the union to enact strike action in the first place. Speak out against the perpetrators, not the retaliation.

 

[KTHV]

That kind of puerile insult has a habit of backfiring - as it has done with me. As a passenger whose own simple desire to use the railway to get somewhere, rather than to join it as a "Movement" (now there's an oxymoron for you) - I notice that the rail industry already has several layers of safety checking built in to its structure to look after my interests, and does not consider a body such as the RMT with a clear vested duality of interest in the jobs and wages of its members - is fit and proper to be a permanent, objective part of the that structure. If DOO is unsafe it won't happen - only it has done, and it is, as far as I can see. Nothing is without risk but all your arguments merely seem to translate one use case of potential human error by guards into another slightly different, use case of human error by drivers. Perhaps we should have a whole phalanx of guards on every train, to stand by every single door, each operating their door and their door alone? What I really can't stand in this is union members claiming to be acting in the interests of the passenger while treating the passenger - ie me and thousands of others like me trying to keep our jobs and families - with complete indifference and even contempt. Just a little less hypocrisy would be nice.

After that little diatribe we would therefore like to refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)

 

[BestWestern]

So, forgive my slowness then, have GTR ever said or implied that OBS staff won't be fully trained in how to close that external door safely?

Have they ever, up until now, said anything other than that Drivers would have full door control? This contradicts that completely.

 

[Surreytraveller]

What about trains which have altered calling patterns? A train I was on today was supposed to be fast from Victoria to Gatwick, but had to call at East Croydon as the OBS was oblivious. It would seem that now only drivers get the not to stop orders, and any other staff who may or may not be on the train just give passengers wrong information as they are now effectively in the dark.