Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Surreytraveller]

But I didn't think railways were high up the agenda?

Not on the agenda of the politicians, but if commuters couldn't get home, they would be on the agenda of voters.

 

[sarahj]

On the Southampton tunnel thingy, someone has now sent a message saying an OBS could be the second pair of eyes.

And I will leave it without comment.

 

[pompeyfan]

On the Southampton tunnel thingy, someone has now sent a message saying an OBS could be the second pair of eyes.

And I will leave it without comment.

Appreciate you can't say too much, but is this in the form of a staff email or briefing, or hearsay and chitchat.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Presumably OBSs' eyesight won't need to be of the same standard as someone safety critical, so there's no guarantee they'd be able to see something that a competent person might see, assuming they know what they're looking for.

 

[InOban]

Presumably the inspection was needed because there was some suggestion that there was an issue. Surely it is not impossible to tell the OBS what they are to look for?

 

[sarahj]

Appreciate you can't say too much, but is this in the form of a staff email or briefing, or hearsay and chitchat.

An email from a manager to a depot LDC

 

[455driver]

Presumably the inspection was needed because there was some suggestion that there was an issue. Surely it is not impossible to tell the OBS what they are to look for?

Its not impossible to tell the bloke sat 3rd seat down on the right, it doesnt make them a competent person!

An OBS has absolutely no route knowledge whatsoever so would be the equivalent to the bloke satin the train!

Its this sort of thing that people dont 'get' about the OBS role!

 

[Robertj21a]

Presumably the inspection was needed because there was some suggestion that there was an issue. Surely it is not impossible to tell the OBS what they are to look for?

Quite. There seems to be an assumption that all of the OBS are totally incapable of even the normal basic functions of a human being !

 

[furnessvale]

Presumably OBSs' eyesight won't need to be of the same standard as someone safety critical, so there's no guarantee they'd be able to see something that a competent person might see, assuming they know what they're looking for.

That begs the question what special training a competent person receives in looking out of a window for as yet unspecified things!

 

[sarahj]

That begs the question what special training a competent person receives in looking out of a window for as yet unspecified things!

Well, minimum eye sight standards. Full colour tests. Route knowledge, so we know whats different/where the issue is. Your also fully trained to be in the cab and know whats what. Someone with no idea, a few days training...

TBH, when your asked to look out for things, you are often given an idea on what, but looking for things you know about is much easier when you have full 3d colour eyesight and know where you, esp as many happen in the dark and may involve something near a bridge or crossing.

 

[ComUtoR]

That begs the question what special training a competent person receives in looking out of a window for as yet unspecified things!

I suppose that sometimes you need specialist knowledge. I would assume that most, if not all Drivers know and could recognise a track circuit spider and potentially so would a Guard. Would an OBS ? Would an OBS even know what the Cess was ? As a Driver I need to be able to communicate with the competent person. That competent person also needs to relay information to me in a way in which I understand, using safety critical communication protocols and using the technical knowledge required so that I can pass that information onwards.

"I saw some thing in the track with wires out of it near that white diamond sign" Yep totally understandable :/

Competent persons are also there as a 'just in case' they need specialist knowledge and the ability to act safely. They also use their specialist knowledge to assist. Providing that extra set of eyes means the ability to understand too. If I am distracted whilst driving then I would expect any competent person in the cab with me to assist in signal sighting, ESR reminders, AWS warning, and prompting me about route knowledge should I miss a curvature, gradient or various lineside infrastructure.

Just some dude looking out the window isn't exactly helpful or 'competent' They specify 'competent' and that is quite broad. If I needed a competent person to assist with route conducting then I would expect that person to be route competent. The same goes with anything operational.

I would also expect the competent person to have the ability to stop the train in an emergency. I'm pretty confident that most, if not all, Guards are trained to stop the unit in an emergency.

I think the entire debate about OBS and their competency is justified. I know people who have been on the railway, in and around trains, that don't know what a DRA is.

Sarah also makes an excellent point about the fitness requirements for safety critical staff. If I was F2 I would be constrained by whatever restriction placed. What about an OBS or any other grade. How medically restricted can they be but still be able to carry out their duties ?

It isn't about just looking out the window. As always people forget what we do for a living.

 

[redbutton]

Also not to mention that the Southern Rule Book Appendix says that they define a competent person as having rules, traction, and route knowledge. Something OBSs completely lack.

 

[pompeyfan]

On top of that, basic guards training gives you an understanding of signalling, how it works, what does what, and what signs mean what. If you've only had 3 days training (although revenue itself is a 2 week course) you're a lot less likely to know what does what, say if an axle counter had taken a whack for whatever reason, would an off the street or ex RPI know what an axle counter was?

While we're talking about competent person, guards are also authorised to oversee the driver in the event the DSD/DVD is isolated, so the train can continue (although this doesn't apply to TPWS or AWS sadly) I'd imagine the rule book wouldn't allow an OBS to do the same?

Finally, what happens if the EBS has to be used on a 2/3 unit configuration? Would an OBS be regarded as competent to sit in the front an of the rear unit? I'm sorry if my posts come across as being insulting to OBS, when a lot of them are ex guards and know full well what their previous job was, I'm not trying to infer you're some useless lemming that doesn't know their 'no refuge' from a limited clearance telephone just because you've sadly and stupidly had your train working licence taken from you.

 

[furnessvale]

Also not to mention that the Southern Rule Book Appendix says that they define a competent person as having rules, traction, and route knowledge. Something OBSs completely lack.

I was going to ask if there was a definition. Your answer closes the matter for me. Thanks.

 

[InOban]

Clearly the driver was operating by the rule book, and I am sure that in other circumstances the driver would be disciplined for having unqualified person in the cab.

However, we still don't know what it is that the line was being inspected for. We must assume that signalling had decided that the task did not really need a competent person as per the rule book, but merely needed an extra pair of eyes, allowing the driver to drive the train.

The problem of an organisation entirely tied up with rules is that it may be safe, but it leaves the employees as cogs in the machine, with no stake in the business. The fact that the incident cost NR significant delay money isn't the driver's problem. That this left NR with less money to spend on activities which would add greater value to the business? Not his problem.

For comparison, if there is a missing person situation, the police will often be assisted by members of the public. They are not competent people, but they are briefed on the task by competent persons.

 

[ComUtoR]

However, we still don't know what it is that the line was being inspected for. We must assume that signalling had decided that the task did not really need a competent person as per the rule book, but merely needed an extra pair of eyes, allowing the driver to drive the train.

The rule book (that I can find) doesn't allow for such a circumstance. The Driver is constrained by the rule book. If it states 'competent person required' then that is what must happen. The rule book isn't 'flexible' and doesn't merely need an extra pair of eyes.

They should not be ignored or circumvented to save a few quid here and there. The rules are there for a reason and should always be applied.

I understand the rules can frustrating at times but it appears we wish to erode them each time a the bean-counters want to get involved.

 

[InOban]

I wonder if there are any Safety experts in this forum. It's my understanding that a long and detailed rule book is a safety hazard. As with the Highway Code, we internalise the rules we have to apply all the time and forget the ones we rarely need. Sometimes it's safer to make someone think and make a judgement, than to give them detailed instructions for every situation.

In the Southampton case, I wonder whether if the conversation had been along the lines of

Signaller: we've had a report of X on the other line. Can you look out for it?

Driver: I'm not sure if I would see X on the other line. I could use another pair of eyes on that side.

S: We've got an OBS spare, would be/she help? It would save holding up other trains.

D: OK.

S: Thanks. I've recorded this conversation in case there's any problem.

 

[ComUtoR]

Manager : Driver, Were you aware of the current instruction requiring a competent person through Southampton Tunnel

Driver : Yes

M : Can you please explain why you believed that this instruction can be ignored.

D : Well, it saved time and there was less of a delay to the service.

M : Can you please explain your duties as a Driver.

D : To ensure safe running of the service and to be responsible to my passengers and colleagues.

M : Why did you deliberately ignore this responsibility.

D : Well the Signaller recorded the conversation.

M : Yes, that's correct. We have recorded evidence of you ignoring a safety instruction.

Judge : Driver, as you deliberately ignored a specific instruction from companies safety policy are you aware that you have now broken the H&S at work act and are now criminally liable.

D : Yes

It wouldn't make a difference if it was recorded or not. If you carry out something that you know to be incorrect or against the rules then you are 100% liable.

You made a comment up thread about telling the OBS what to look for. Doesn't that go against the suggestion for giving someone specific instruction for each situation. Having a 'competent person' doesn't require giving out any instruction; they already know what to do.

The rule book is long and detailed (although getting shorter) because its built on past incidents. It is a very reactive document built up from past errors. It leaves no room for ambiguity... and allows investigators to find specific fault and specific causes for incidents etc.

Donald Wilson, ORR principal safety inspector, said: “Train drivers hold a position of great responsibility for safety on our railways. They must comply with health and safety law, and work in accordance with their licence and training.

Quote taken from http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co....-dodged-jail/story-24508253-detail/story.html This prompted a huge response from ASLEF regarding the Drivers responsibility and future prosecutions under Health and Safety Law.

 

[ComUtoR]

S: We've got an OBS spare, would be/she help? It would save holding up other trains.

Who may not even be on the train. What then ?

 

[Fincra5]

I personally wouldn't deem the OBS a competent person. They aren't Safety Critical can therefore, IMO, shouldn't be in a operating driving cab.

Let alone would they have any idea what they are looking for if we used the Jargon we know from our Rules Training? Probably not.

The way I look at it the Driver is being compliant with the rule book and the Southern Appendix too.

OBS' aren't even trained in evacuation, so in the event a driver (if able) has to evacuate a train, the OBS is as useful as an Average Joe passenger!

 

[theironroad]

A signaller earlier today asked a Southern service to examine the line through Southampton tunnel earlier today, asking the guard to sit in the 2nd mans side. Obviously the driver had to politely decline as OBS's don't have valid competency to do so, hence the signaller had to get a long freightliner to go wrong road to check for issues, which in turn caused the up Weymouth to leave 10 minutes late and also caused quite a few other late departures, all those delay minutes in the name of trying to save a few quid.....

Without wanting to be too pedantic, Southampton tunnel is bidirectional on both roads so the Freightliner wouldn't have been going 'wrong road'.

 

[HLE]

I personally wouldn't deem the OBS a competent person. They aren't Safety Critical can therefore, IMO, shouldn't be in a operating driving cab.

Let alone would they have any idea what they are looking for if we used the Jargon we know from our Rules Training? Probably not.

The way I look at it the Driver is being compliant with the rule book and the Southern Appendix too.

OBS' aren't even trained in evacuation, so in the event a driver (if able) has to evacuate a train, the OBS is as useful as an Average Joe passenger!

Going to be shot down in flames here, but I wouldn't think half of the 'newer' guards up this way would know what they are looking for either, even though they are considered 'competent' to be a second pair of eyes in the cab.

That's not a dig at them, moreso their training on railway jargon.

 

[pompeyfan]

Without wanting to be too pedantic, Southampton tunnel is bidirectional on both roads so the Freightliner wouldn't have been going 'wrong road'.

Indeed I'm well aware of that, wrong road was the wrong term, I should probably have said the freightliner was sent down the up.

 

[infobleep]

Well, minimum eye sight standards. Full colour tests. Route knowledge, so we know whats different/where the issue is. Your also fully trained to be in the cab and know whats what. Someone with no idea, a few days training...

TBH, when your asked to look out for things, you are often given an idea on what, but looking for things you know about is much easier when you have full 3d colour eyesight and know where you, esp as many happen in the dark and may involve something near a bridge or crossing.

I take it one needs to have stereoscopic vision and colour vision to be a guard. Is that required to be an OBS?

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[Southern Dvr]

To my knowledge OBS isn't trained in cab discipline.

Regrettably I'd view it the same as being asked to have a passenger in the leading cab.

Not going to happen.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Colour vision is a pre-requisite if you need to know what signal aspect you have at the end of the platform! XD

Corrected vision using spectacles is acceptable providing the minimum standard is met, however laser eye treated vision isnt accepted currently, altjough this is beginning to change

 

[SpacePhoenix]

BS' aren't even trained in evacuation, so in the event a driver (if able) has to evacuate a train, the OBS is as useful as an Average Joe passenger!

Seriously?! hock:I would have expected ALL on board staff, no matter what job title/function to be trained in evacuation procedures

 

[ComUtoR]

Seriously?! hock:I would have expected ALL on board staff, no matter what job title/function to be trained in evacuation procedures

What gave you that impression ?

The idea is for a train to have the flexibility to run without the OBS. Why train them in something that's rare and would unlikely use ?

makes you wonder why the Unions were so determined to get their competencies nailed down and agreed from the beginning.

 

[dcsprior]

The rule book (that I can find) doesn't allow for such a circumstance. The Driver is constrained by the rule book. If it states 'competent person required' then that is what must happen. The rule book isn't 'flexible' and doesn't merely need an extra pair of eyes.

The rule book is long and detailed (although getting shorter) because its built on past incidents. It is a very reactive document built up from past errors. It leaves no room for ambiguity... and allows investigators to find specific fault and specific causes for incidents etc.

Out of interest, do different sections in the rule book outline what must / must not and should / should not be done, or is everything in there something that must / must not be done?

 

[infobleep]

Colour vision is a pre-requisite if you need to know what signal aspect you have at the end of the platform! XD

Corrected vision using spectacles is acceptable providing the minimum standard is met, however laser eye treated vision isnt accepted currently, altjough this is beginning to change

Is it simply that their hasn't been enough research into whether it is good enough for train driving, that it isn't current accepted?