Should Whelan Resign?

[Robertj21a]

I'm not sure I'd go for 'refreshing'. It isn't as if he came out and said "You know what, I was wrong". What he did was make his case, lead the fight, then give in, abandon his comrades and try to hide his failure by making a laughable 'victory speech' which, when the details emerged, makes you wonder if he was sitting in the same room. It's shown him to be a weak leader, in my opinion. I don't doubt it will be welcome if you're a Southern commuter of course, provided you don't value on board staff.

Many people travelling by train in that part of the world will catch Thameslink (no guard/conductor/OBS) or travel by Southern where an OBS is already missing, or has a guard/conductor who is rarely visible.

My 'refreshing' was referring to the issue being resolved 'sensibly'.

 

[Dieseldriver]

It doesn't show the safety argument is 'dead in the water' if the deal is rejected by the very people who it relates to. Mick Whelan does not drive trains, the ASLEF membership do.

 

[embers25]

It doesn't show the safety argument is 'dead in the water' if the deal is rejected by the very people who it relates to. Mick Whelan does not drive trains, the ASLEF membership do.

Mick Whelan DID drive trains and was elected by the comrades to represent them and so if this deal gets voted down by members then that says the members only support their leaders when they score the political points they are looking for too... So again the dispute is not about safety its about politics and the RMT and OBS's thought they'd bring down Southern and the government and failed miserably. If Mick Whelan had got a full DOO ban you'd be singing his praises not questioning his authority. The whole point of unions is that their leaders undertake negotiations on behalf of their members and if the members cry foul each time their political objectives aren't met by their leader then the power of unions should be called into question even more. Look at the RMT claiming victory in the tube dispute despite them agreeing to multiple job losses. The RMT needs to modernise fast before it goes the same way as the NUM and takes all its members jobs with it...just like the NUM. Anecdotal evidence is not proof of the guard being safety critical. A guard is a nice to have not a necessity and cancelling a train because of no guard should never happen. Also guards should NEVER do doors as it just causes delay and is not safe as often the guard has worse visibility than the driver with his video cams. I agree a guard/OBS brings in extra revenue on board but ticket sellers are not safety critical and money should not be wasted on route knowledge etc. The reason guards cost taxpayers is that franchise costs for non-DOO are higher and so require more subsidy.

 

[47802]

Never struck me as safety exercise just attempts at job protection by a 1970's throwback left wing unions. Yes potentially being made redundant or having to change job role is not very nice but it happens in the real world on a daily basis and I don't see why railway workers should be immune to that.

Yes by all means if there are concerns about the quality of CCTV equipment, length of some trains, and possible prosecution of Drivers in dragging incidents then yes they should be looked at but in principal DOO has run successfully on the railways for many years, so they really don't have much of an argument against it and particularly where they want implement it on Northern and Merseyrail where the trains are usually much shorter anyway.

As for whether Whelen should resign well that should be up to the members to decide.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

Never in my life have I seen so many train drivers in the messroom shaking their heads in disbelief at ASLEF. Wheelan has scored a massive own goal and made himself look stupid. It would come as no surprise to me to see Southern drivers vote against this. They must feel like they are being led by 'The Grand Old Duke Of York' All the way to the top only to be lead straight back down again, and get shafted on the way by the Duke himself.

ASLEF executive has let it's members down badly, and the members know it. You won't spin your way out of this one Wheelan, Drivers aren't stupid, and you have been found out.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Mick Whelan DID drive trains and was elected by the comrades to represent them and so if this deal gets voted down by members then that says the members only support their leaders when they score the political points they are looking for too... So again the dispute is not about safety its about politics and the RMT and OBS's thought they'd bring down Southern and the government and failed miserably. If Mick Whelan had got a full DOO ban you'd be singing his praises not questioning his authority. The whole point of unions is that their leaders undertake negotiations on behalf of their members and if the members cry foul each time their political objectives aren't met by their leader then the power of unions should be called into question even more. Look at the RMT claiming victory in the tube dispute despite them agreeing to multiple job losses. The RMT needs to modernise fast before it goes the same way as the NUM and takes all its members jobs with it...just like the NUM. Anecdotal evidence is not proof of the guard being safety critical. A guard is a nice to have not a necessity and cancelling a train because of no guard should never happen. Also guards should NEVER do doors as it just causes delay and is not safe as often the guard has worse visibility than the driver with his video cams. I agree a guard/OBS brings in extra revenue on board but ticket sellers are not safety critical and money should not be wasted on route knowledge etc. The reason guards cost taxpayers is that franchise costs for non-DOO are higher and so require more subsidy.

No, it isn't about politics. Why not try actually conversing with some Train Drivers about the subject? I have no idea what views are held by the 'Higher ranks' of ASLEF. I do however, have a pretty good grasp of what views the actual Train Drivers themselves have, I am one of them. Mick Whelan is no longer a Driver, these issues and decisions do not affect him. I don't care for politics and neither do most of the 20000 Train Drivers in ASLEF. We care about the safety of us, staff, passengers and we do not welcome extra responsibility and pressure to what is already a demanding, pressurised and responsible role.
Being in a union is not a political statement, I view it as a necessity in a role such as this due to the representation provided (again, as do most of my colleagues).

 

[theblackwatch]

Whelan was never doing to get a 'no drivers doing doors' or no DOO agreement for the Southern section of GTR - DOO has been operating successfully on various parts of the network, including within that TOC, for over 30 years. What he's managed to achieve is pretty much no extension of DOO, in that all trains which ran with a conductor will have an OBS rostered, with a defined set of circumstances when there may not be one present. There's also stuff in there about OBS being safety critical (although it doesnt appear that it's compulsory for them to be if I read it right - one for the RMT to discuss perhaps?).

It seems a pretty sensible compromise to me, and from the passenger's point of view it looks good too - I'm sure that most passengers would prefer an OBS to be on board, although they would rather the train ran without one for part of the journey rather than being cancelled if, say, the OBS had been delayed on a previous journey due to a signal failure.

 

[pompeyfan]

Sorry but not everyone agrees with your biased and fundamentally flawed arguments which lack any basis and fact. Anecdotal evidence from staff trying to save their jobs is not fact. If their is indisputable evidence of the safety case where is it and certainly the TUC and ASLEF don't believe there is so are they liars and clowns too now?

As others have said, being in a union doesn't make you a left loving softy, neither does it instantly make you want to overthrow the government. FWIW, I'm not in the RMT, I'm in a smaller, unrecognised union. I believe the RMT have handled this terribly, and ASLEF on the public face of it have handled it well. Clearly members have their own opinion and some believe it's a terrible deal.

Does it bother you that platform staff are also classed as safety critical if they're involved in the dispatch of a train? What is the reason for your shear disdain at the Guards grade? Did you fail your 2 assessments by any chance?

 

[wingsoveryorks]

Whelan was never doing to get a 'no drivers doing doors' or no DOO agreement for the Southern section of GTR - DOO has been operating successfully on various parts of the network, including within that TOC, for over 30 years. What he's managed to achieve is pretty much no extension of DOO, in that all trains which ran with a conductor will have an OBS rostered, with a defined set of circumstances when there may not be one present. There's also stuff in there about OBS being safety critical (although it doesnt appear that it's compulsory for them to be if I read it right - one for the RMT to discuss perhaps?).

It seems a pretty sensible compromise to me, and from the passenger's point of view it looks good too - I'm sure that most passengers would prefer an OBS to be on board, although they would rather the train ran without one for part of the journey rather than being cancelled if, say, the OBS had been delayed on a previous journey due to a signal failure.

But you have to look at this from the passengers point of view. We know most passengers don't care if anyone is on board, especially the fare dodging kind of which there are many. But what about the disabled passenger who turns up at the station wanting to go to work, finds out there is nobody on the train, and is left. That is a breach of the 'Equality act 2010'
Southern don't care, The government doesn't care, and now it seems Mick Wheelan isn't too bothered either.
The argument over opening of doors is a sideshow. Tell me what conductor wouldn't love to lose that task when he would be paid the same? It's nonsense.
It is no different to not wanting air stewards on a A380. You only think they sell Kit Kats until there is an emergency.

 

[Domh245]

Whelan was never doing to get a 'no drivers doing doors' or no DOO agreement for the Southern section of GTR - DOO has been operating successfully on various parts of the network, including within that TOC, for over 30 years. What he's managed to achieve is pretty much no extension of DOO, in that all trains which ran with a conductor will have an OBS rostered, with a defined set of circumstances when there may not be one present. There's also stuff in there about OBS being safety critical (although it doesnt appear that it's compulsory for them to be if I read it right - one for the RMT to discuss perhaps?).

It seems a pretty sensible compromise to me, and from the passenger's point of view it looks good too - I'm sure that most passengers would prefer an OBS to be on board, although they would rather the train ran without one for part of the journey rather than being cancelled if, say, the OBS had been delayed on a previous journey due to a signal failure.

I agree, but as was pointed out earlier, it sets a precedent and the fact that this agreement was reached will be used on Northern and anywhere else that the DOO is being introduced. If it is agreed to on Southern, then clearly ASLEF are OK to run DOO and It'd be an almighty PR operation to convince people that "what we said was OK 5 minutes ago is actually very bad and we don't like it". It was a situation where they couldn't win so had to settle for the best that they can for their members - even if the best for their members is still rubbish.

 

[Robertj21a]

I agree, but as was pointed out earlier, it sets a precedent and the fact that this agreement was reached will be used on Northern and anywhere else that the DOO is being introduced. If it is agreed to on Southern, then clearly ASLEF are OK to run DOO and It'd be an almighty PR operation to convince people that "what we said was OK 5 minutes ago is actually very bad and we don't like it". It was a situation where they couldn't win so had to settle for the best that they can for their members - even if the best for their members is still rubbish.

Agreed. Surely it will now be utterly impossible for ASLEF to refuse DOO elsewhere (as long as they get similar 'Southern' safeguards/exceptions agreed) ?

 

[theblackwatch]

But you have to look at this from the passengers point of view. We know most passengers don't care if anyone is on board, especially the fare dodging kind of which there are many. But what about the disabled passenger who turns up at the station wanting to go to work, finds out there is nobody on the train, and is left. That is a breach of the 'Equality act 2010'
Southern don't care, The government doesn't care, and now it seems Mick Wheelan isn't too bothered either.
The argument over opening of doors is a sideshow. Tell me what conductor wouldn't love to lose that task when he would be paid the same? It's nonsense.
It is no different to not wanting air stewards on a A380. You only think they sell Kit Kats until there is an emergency.

Unfortunately, the disabled subject is one where the unions have fallen down. RMT could have been getting together with local disability support groups and highlighting this issue in a major campaign, maybe even getting a few people with disabilities to try and join a DOO train at stations - but I've seen no real evidence of that (or maybe I've missed it?). Maybe it's time unions invested in proper PR, rather than what we saw yesterday which, to joe public, looks like Mick Cash rattling his dummy and throwing his toys out of his pram.

It may well be that in the small print of the document, there are services over certain routes which stop at unmanned stations which cannot operate without an OBS. If that isn't the case, it is something RMT should be shouting about.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

Unfortunately, the disabled subject is one where the unions have fallen down. RMT could have been getting together with local disability support groups and highlighting this issue in a major campaign, maybe even getting a few people with disabilities to try and join a DOO train at stations - but I've seen no real evidence of that (or maybe I've missed it?). Maybe it's time unions invested in proper PR, rather than what we saw yesterday which, to joe public, looks like Mick Cash rattling his dummy and throwing his toys out of his pram.

It may well be that in the small print of the document, there are services over certain routes which stop at unmanned stations which cannot operate without an OBS. If that isn't the case, it is something RMT should be shouting about.

I don't disagree. But disability groups themselves have been a little complicit in all of this. They have never taken what has been said seriously and they have never spoken out. Well now they will find out.

 

[Wombat]

But you have to look at this from the passengers point of view. We know most passengers don't care if anyone is on board, especially the fare dodging kind of which there are many. But what about the disabled passenger who turns up at the station wanting to go to work, finds out there is nobody on the train, and is left. That is a breach of the 'Equality act 2010'

If I understand it correctly, the agreement states that an OBS will be present under normal conditions, and that "the TOC has screwed up" is not a satisfactory reason to run a train without an OBS on board. Is that not a decent result for disabled passengers? If (for example) an OBS is delayed due to a signal failure, and there isn't a substitute available, there only seem to be two options:

1) Cancel the service
2) Run the service without the OBS

In both cases the disabled passenger can't travel, but at least in the second case the service will run, and perhaps the disabled passenger will therefore have more space on the next service. Cancelling the service entirely, due to the lack of an OBS, doesn't seem to benefit the disabled passenger.

All that said, I think that disabled passengers are served poorly. At minimum, I'd expect online services to:

a) Clearly state in real time whether or not an OBS is on board
b) Allow disabled users to subscribe to an automated alerting system that notifies them when a service has to run without an OBS
c) Allow disabled users to indicate their requirement for assistance in real time, online or by phone. This "24 hours notice" requirement is shoddy treatment.

 

[Juniper Driver]

But how can they? This agreement, if accepted, proves that Aslef and it's members are happy with DOO, happy with DOO on long busy trains and stations (far busier and bigger than any on the Northern network), happy with DOO on rural routes with unmanned stations, happy to have a multitude of reasons where the 2nd person isn't present, happy for that person to not have any safety training at all. If accepted how on earth can they refuse to adopt the same policy elsewhere? The whole "it was different 30 years ago when we first agreed to it" argument is completely washed away.

No..I'm not happy and don't agree with DOO(So it doesn't prove anything)
but I see it can and does work ok in some cases.
I worked DOO in the early days of the new stock down the W+C and it was fine down there due to the infrastructure.
I could see DOO happening though because of what happened 30 years ago and I remember DOO first coming in then.I was a guard in the mid 1980's and had to get out as I was going to lose my job or have to transfer further away.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

If I understand it correctly, the agreement states that an OBS will be present under normal conditions, and that "the TOC has screwed up" is not a satisfactory reason to run a train without an OBS on board. Is that not a decent result for disabled passengers? If (for example) an OBS is delayed due to a signal failure, and there isn't a substitute available, there only seem to be two options:

1) Cancel the service
2) Run the service without the OBS

In both cases the disabled passenger can't travel, but at least in the second case the service will run, and perhaps the disabled passenger will therefore have more space on the next service. Cancelling the service entirely, due to the lack of an OBS, doesn't seem to benefit the disabled passenger.

All that said, I think that disabled passengers are served poorly. At minimum, I'd expect online services to:

a) Clearly state in real time whether or not an OBS is on board
b) Allow disabled users to subscribe to an automated alerting system that notifies them when a service has to run without an OBS
c) Allow disabled users to indicate their requirement for assistance in real time, online or by phone. This "24 hours notice" requirement is shoddy treatment.

What you call an insolvable problem. Stopping 1,200 people travelling for the sake of 1 doesn't make sense, but the issue could be solved by correct and sensible rostering where trains are not at risk of being unmanned. Will it happen. Umm.

 

[LowLevel]

Agreed. Surely it will now be utterly impossible for ASLEF to refuse DOO elsewhere (as long as they get similar 'Southern' safeguards/exceptions agreed) ?

I disagree - I suspect the BR/Regional Railways swathes of efficiency cuts to station and other staffing in the 80s and 90s will make it much more difficult to impose DOO-P 'set the train rolling with just the driver on it' elsewhere.

Take the Skegness line as a depressing example - leave Grantham after 2pm and bar a few signalmen in traditional style boxes and Sleaford Pway depot the next manned station is Skegness, despite the fact it serves reasonably sized stations at Sleaford and Boston. The MOM and S&T are based in Lincoln as are BTP (if they're available!) and response times can run over an hour even with serious problems. I think the likelihood of that route losing a mandatory second member of staff, particularly with how busy the trains are in summer, is unlikely.

The situation is replicated all over the Midlands and North - stations which in areas like Birmingham, Manchester or London retained staffing were unmanned years ago. The Derby to Stoke line is another example, as well as the Matlock branch.

Consequently I as a guard spend far more time 'doing things' than others might because apart from the driver locked away up front there isn't anyone else for 10s of miles.

Changes in door operations might happen with changes in train types but I'd be surprised if full DOO appeared in a lot of areas in the short to medium term.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I am not a driver or guard and have no first hand experience of working trains on the main line. I've at first followed the Southern debate and then tried not to as it generally made me angry, with no parties appearing prepared to say what the dispute is really about.

Am I the only one wondering why Southern, of all possible TOCs, was used as this 'test case'? Of any of the potential options, a London commuter route operating 12 car trains carrying a thousand pax at a time, with long curved platforms and presumably profitable operations already seems a strange choice.

To me the cost benefits of DOO operation would be better felt on a more regional / local set of routes where passengers are lower, operating costs higher and profit margins small or non-existent?

 

[TheEdge]

Am I the only one wondering why Southern, of all possible TOCs, was used as this 'test case'? Of any of the potential options, a London commuter route operating 12 car trains carrying a thousand pax at a time, with long curved platforms and presumably profitable operations already seems a strange choice.

Because GTR/Southern are not a proper TOC, its a DfT management contract run by Govia. So the DfT could and can force the issue, a normal style TOC may have come round the table a lot sooner. Also it already has a relatively large amount of DOO, which most TOCs don't have.

To me the cost benefits of DOO operation would be better felt on a more regional / local set of routes where passengers are lower, operating costs higher and profit margins small or non-existent?

Good to know that, as always, we should only allow to hardship to fall upon everywhere except the South East.

Also most regional and local TOCs have little to no DOO, their rolling stock isn't equipped for it, none of their staff are trained for it already, none of their stations are set up for it. Money is the other reason Southern got to do this, as a management contract it doesn't matter how badly they perform, they still get paid, doesn't apply to any other TOC.

Southern should have been the easiest...

 

[jon0844]

Fully driverless trains are probably 10-20 years or more away, but I am sure we'll see new technology being allowed to aid drivers (which in the long run will reduce the need for some parts of training).

You could imagine a system that makes route knowledge redundant, for example. I am sure the unions will go mad over that sort of thing, as this will undermine the 'power' of drivers to maintain a high rate of pay and job security.

I have no doubt the unions are fully aware of all of this and discuss such things as a matter of routine because EVERY profession has to accept technology is going to change things massively, and in some professions a lot sooner than 10-20 years. Try 1-2 years for some.

 

[Legzr1]

Fully driverless trains are probably 10-20 years or more away, but I am sure we'll see new technology being allowed to aid drivers (which in the long run will reduce the need for some parts of training).

You could imagine a system that makes route knowledge redundant, for example. I am sure the unions will go mad over that sort of thing, as this will undermine the 'power' of drivers to maintain a high rate of pay and job security.

I have no doubt the unions are fully aware of all of this and discuss such things as a matter of routine because EVERY profession has to accept technology is going to change things massively, and in some professions a lot sooner than 10-20 years. Try 1-2 years for some.

10-20 years for a full network of driverless trains?

I'll have a pint of what you've been drinking please.

 

[TheEdge]

Fully driverless trains are probably 10-20 years or more away, but I am sure we'll see new technology being allowed to aid drivers (which in the long run will reduce the need for some parts of training).

Errrrm, no. With a brand new generation of very much not driverless trains under construction for lots of TOCs we will be waiting at least another 20-30 years before we even start looking at that, totally ignoring the millions (if not billions) of investment needed in just the infrastructure.

You could imagine a system that makes route knowledge redundant, for example. I am sure the unions will go mad over that sort of thing, as this will undermine the 'power' of drivers to maintain a high rate of pay and job security.

I have no doubt the unions are fully aware of all of this and discuss such things as a matter of routine because EVERY profession has to accept technology is going to change things massively, and in some professions a lot sooner than 10-20 years. Try 1-2 years for some.

Damn, damn those people who through the membership and existence of unions still have decent terms and conditions. Damn them, everyone deserves the same awful working rights. Win that race to the bottom, and while your at it invest in workhouses...

10-20 years for a full network of driverless trains?

I'll have a pint of what you've been drinking please.

Paint thinners I imagine...

 

[the sniper]

Anecdotal evidence is not proof of the guard being safety critical.

Your continued ignorance around the term 'Safety Critical' is embarrassing. A Guards role in the eyes of the industry is a Safety Critical role, carrying out Safety Critical duties. It has nothing to do with the unions. Most of the reasoning for stripping Guards of any real duty or responsibility is so they can no longer be considered 'Safety Critical' and are thus dispensable.

Guards carry out Safety Critical duties, OBS will most probably not carry out any Safety Critical duties.

Here are the duties considered Safety Critical, any role carrying out any of these are considered Safety Critical positions: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/2633/rsp004-rogs-crtcl_tasks.pdf

 

[Bellbell]

You must be seeing something that I am not, because I'm not sure I can see in what way the ASLEF agreement has undermined RMT.

It is codified in the agreement that the normal method of working will be DOO with driver and OBS, that OBS depot establishments will be based on a ratio of 2:1 OBS to running turns and that OBSs can retain or be trained to attain additional competencies with regards to despatch. While I agree that I would have preferred for conductors to have been retained and DOO be kicked into the long grass, this agreement doesn't particularly look like a charter for mass redundancies among the OBS grade. I concede that it's not exactly a cast-iron guarantee of job security and that the OBS grade doesn't look like a good long-term prospect, but for the short to medium term at least it does give some reassurance.

It has become increasingly clear over the past few months that GTR were never going to be able to back away from it's commitment to DOO no matter what opposition they faced. As such, there had to be some sort of exit strategy that assuages the concerns of each union's members, and ASLEF has, whether willingly or under coercion from the TUC over the course of several days, reached a position that it feels is at least palatable to put to it's members.

What I'm still struggling to see is how this undermines RMT. I would hope that RMT will be accorded the same facilities to sit down with GTR and discuss the concerns of their members to help them arrive at their own exit position. I don't see how the agreement reached with ASLEF is prejudicial to that. If RMT are still in dispute with GTR then surely the opportunity still exists.

But I come back again to my earlier point, which is that it is for RMT to negotiate for their own members and not to rely on ASLEF to do that for them.

O L Leigh

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-and-aslef-executives-sign-joint-statement/

That's how it undermines the RMT. The unions said they were going into this together, and to not give the details of the agreement to the RMT in advance is a clear slight. ASLEF (well, Wheelan) evidently considered the RMT so insignificant as to not need to even give them the courtesy of a heads up that their joint agreement on DOO had been broken.

I accept that there's only so much ASLEF can/could do to protect the guard's role as they are primarily a drivers' union, not a guards' so I'm not arguing with you on that point but by bypassing the RMT completely Wheelan sends a clear message about their importance in his eyes.

Actually, to come back to this, I think it's a little disingenuous to say that it's for the RMT to negotiate for their own members, not ASLEF. It is, yes, but you must be able to recognise that it's not exactly easy to negotiate from a position where the drivers have essentially conceded that you're not needed.

 

[embers25]

Your continued ignorance around the term 'Safety Critical' is embarrassing. A Guards role in the eyes of the industry is a Safety Critical role, carrying out Safety Critical duties. It has nothing to do with the unions. Most of the reasoning for stripping Guards of any real duty or responsibility is so they can no longer be considered 'Safety Critical' and are thus dispensable.

Guards carry out Safety Critical duties, OBS will most probably not carry out any Safety Critical duties.

Here are the duties considered Safety Critical, any role carrying out any of these are considered Safety Critical positions: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/2633/rsp004-rogs-crtcl_tasks.pdf

Your post has beautifully proved my point. As your doc proves, it does not have to be a guard to do these tasks. The tasks are safety critical, the guard is not as a train could operate in DOO mode without a guard and all these tasks can still be done. Southern have never said the safety critical tasks don't need doing and neither have I. We are both saying it does not need to and should not be the guard doing them and therefore the guard is NOT a critical member of staff and they are not essential for safe operation of the train and your doc proves that

 

[the sniper]

The role of a Guard is a Safety Critical role. If you remove the Safety Critical duties and responsibilities of a Guard, they're no longer a Guard. Southern may have done many things wrong, but they're not stupid enough to argue that a Guard/Conductors role is not Safety Critical. Safety Critical has a defined meaning.

South West Trains advert for a Guard:

CLICK THIS, WITH YOUR MOUSE!

Minimum Requirements
Applicants must reach the required health and fitness standards as this position is classified as safety critical.

You are arguing against fact. Please desist.

 

[jon0844]

10-20 years for a full network of driverless trains?

I'll have a pint of what you've been drinking please.

Whoever said full network? I'm sure in 20 years, there will be trains that may well have a driver up front (sincerely hope so) but won't have to be actively driving a train at all.

I may be wrong on the times (God, I gave a range of 10 years so it was hardly supposed to be specific) but you tell me it's not going to happen or be possible anywhere in the world, and that it won't happen here and ultimately one day - everywhere.

 

[pompeyfan]

Whoever said full network? I'm sure in 20 years, there will be trains that may well have a driver up front (sincerely hope so) but won't have to be actively driving a train at all.

I may be wrong on the times (God, I gave a range of 10 years so it was hardly supposed to be specific) but you tell me it's not going to happen or be possible anywhere in the world, and that it won't happen here and ultimately one day - everywhere.

Network rail struggle to make the current infrastructure work (as do LUL etc) you'll always need someone up the front to keep things moving, or press the big red plunger. Thought I concede your point that drivers might have to do less driving than now. (Surely though, that's counter productive as it'll be harder to maintain concentration on 30+ minute sprints etc.

 

[driver_m]

If I ask someone that's safety critical to look for a damaged dropper in a tunnel or in the dark then I'll ask for a guard. Because that's what they're trained to do. Doesn't happen that often but they're there to help, same thing when I need someone to see if my wheels are rotating normally.

 

[jon0844]

Network rail struggle to make the current infrastructure work (as do LUL etc) you'll always need someone up the front to keep things moving, or press the big red plunger. Thought I concede your point that drivers might have to do less driving than now. (Surely though, that's counter productive as it'll be harder to maintain concentration on 30+ minute sprints etc.

I can't see drivers going full stop. They're still on the Underground, and there's always someone on DLR that can step in.

I never said drivers would disappear, and of course in the UK I can see us taking far longer than elsewhere.

The point was, just as Black Cab drivers with the Knowledge now have new competition, a train driver may require less training in the future and once a job becomes a little easier, and drivers considered more expendable, their power will reduce.

Heck, I'm in a union. I am aware of changes that will affect my career in the future (something I'm already actively looking at mitigating by perhaps doing something else). I can pretend otherwise, but I'm only kidding myself.

I didn't say any of this to somehow attack the union, or drivers. Far from it. The unions will indeed fight to protect their members, and so they should. Most industries should. But changes will happen, there's no doubt.