Should Southern On Board Supervisors (OBS) be abolished?

[Kite159]

In my experience with Southern, you get good OBS staff whom do revenue/make announcements with connections [change here for stations to ABC, the next train is currently scheduled to be the XX:YY from platform Z]. You also get some OBS whom seem to just sit in 1st class, only popping out at stations to check for anybody needing assistance.

Same with guards, you get good guards who come out for customer services/revenue, you also get lazy guards whom sit in the back/middle cab only popping out at stations to do the doors, even going as far to lock out the interconnecting gangway doors so they don't get pestered by those pesky passengers (some guards on London Northwestern services on the southern end of the WCML)

 

[Horizon22]

With the switch from Southern to Thameslink for some services, it remains tenuous as to why Thameslink runs DOO with self dispatch and Southern doesn't on the same routes, which was the basis for the original change.

The role couldn't be done the same way as the OBS is pretty uniquely developed for Electrostar stock. It could deviate, but it seemed to be not compatable with 700s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The role couldn't be done the same way as the OBS is pretty uniquely developed for Electrostar stock. It could deviate, but it seemed to be not compatable with 700s.

I think it's fair to say that the Merseyrail "train manager" role is largely similar (technically safety critical, but I think that was more a placation of the Unions than strictly necessary), so there is scope for it to work slightly differently in other places. The key is that it's a second person on board whose primary role is customer service and accessibility.

 

[43066]

It definitely doesn't have to be though; active ticket checks (and occasional selling), good passenger announcements, dealing with disruption issues, providing passenger info, patrolling the train, providing assisted travel on-board etc.

There's no such thing as a non-job really, and it's rather snobbish to think that just because it's not operationally required it's a "non-job". Lots of customer service people are employed on the railway (not to mention people away from 'frontline' roles) who are obviously providing some benefit.

No snobbery of any kind was implied in my previous comment (and, if anyone took it as such, I apologise). However, if you ask guards at your TOC whether they would want their role to be dilluted to the level of an OBS, I’m confident they’ll all be firmly against. There are good reasons for that.

As described most eloquently by @bramling upthread, OBS is a role with a permanent cloud over it. It would almost certainly have been abolished if it wasn’t for the accessibility issues - is anyone seriously suggesting otherwise?

 

[Horizon22]

No snobbery of any kind was implied in my previous comment. However, if you ask guards at your TOC whether they would want their role to be dilluted to the level of an OBS, they’ll be firmly against. There are good reasons for that.

No of course, perhaps its just the way you worded your response. I do find it frustrating that roles have to appear to be "safety critical" to somehow be required, despite the fact that they can play an important role.

Going back to the time of Southern's DOO disputes 2016-2018, I think most people expected this role gone by now.

 

[43066]

No of course, perhaps its just the way you worded your response. I do find it frustrating that roles have to appear to be "safety critical" to somehow be required, despite the fact that they can play an important role.

Going back to the time of Southern's DOO disputes 2016-2018, I think most people expected this role gone by now.

Understood, and fully agreed. As always, shades of meaning can be easily lost over written conversation.

As always on these pages, it’s useful to have a healthy conversation about these issues, and we certainly shouldn’t shy away from that.

 

[Horizon22]

Understood, and fully agreed. As always, shades of meaning can be easily lost over written conversation.

As always on these pages, it’s useful to have a healthy conversation about these issues, and we certainly shouldn’t shy away from that.

Sure. As it so happens my preferred method of working for most routes (even some which are already DOO) would be the OBS model, with a driver and a supporting on-board role. Unfortunately we seem hung up on the fact that if they are not safety-critical a) they aren't 'real' jobs, b) they can be removed on a whim c) other grades look down on them d) guards worried about being de-skilled.

It didn't help that as a matter of principle the RMT didn't (still don't?) recognise the grade.

 

[43066]

Sure. As it so happens my preferred method of working for most routes (even some which are already DOO) would be the OBS model, with a driver and a supporting on-board role. Unfortunately we seem hung up on the fact that if they are not safety-critical a) they aren't 'real' jobs, b) they can be removed on a whim c) other grades look down on them d) guards worried about being de-skilled.

As a driver working guarded trains I’d oppose the OBS model for all of the reasons above.

Admittedly the main reason I want someone else doing the doors is to absolve me of liability, if I drag someone off a platform, which I accept is a different argument. However I also wholeheartedly agree with the viewpoint expressed above that, if you’re going to have a second person on the train, they’ll be more motivated and engaged if they’re safety critical themselves.

It didn't help that as a matter of principle the RMT didn't (still don't?) recognise the grade.

I’m not sure that’s still accurate? Can anyone confirm?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sure. As it so happens my preferred method of working for most routes (even some which are already DOO) would be the OBS model, with a driver and a supporting on-board role. Unfortunately we seem hung up on the fact that if they are not safety-critical a) they aren't 'real' jobs, b) they can be removed on a whim c) other grades look down on them d) guards worried about being de-skilled.

It didn't help that as a matter of principle the RMT didn't (still don't?) recognise the grade.

I think for intercity trains I'd be looking at the Lumo "DOO with stewards" model which is another variation on a theme.

 

[Surreytraveller]

It definitely doesn't have to be though; active ticket checks (and occasional selling), good passenger announcements, dealing with disruption issues, providing passenger info, patrolling the train, providing assisted travel on-board etc.

There's no such thing as a non-job really, and it's rather snobbish to think that just because it's not operationally required it's a "non-job". Lots of customer service people are employed on the railway (not to mention people away from 'frontline' roles) who are obviously providing some benefit.

Indeed, although not safety critical, they are operationally required at some locations - Ore and West Worthing spring to mind, where trains terminate and go into a siding, where there are no station staff to turf the train out. They also assist with pass comms.

 

[Horizon22]

As a driver working guarded trains I’d oppose the OBS model for all of the reasons above.

Admittedly the main reason I want someone else doing the doors is to absolve me of liability, if I drag someone off a platform, which I accept is a different argument. However I also wholeheartedly agree with the viewpoint expressed above that, if you’re going to have a second person on the train, they’ll be more motivated and engaged if they’re safety critical themselves.

In my eyes, you are partly contributing to this culture of "not safety critical = non-job". It's not right, for the hundreds of staff out and about. Why should someone safety-critical be "more engaged"?

I'm not going to start rehashing DOO arguments again though.

 

[43066]

In my eyes, you are partly contributing to this culture of "not safety critical = non-job". It's not right, for the hundreds of staff out and about. Why should someone safety-critical be "more engaged"?

There aren’t staff out and about doing OBS roles where I work. Come on, you’re an intelligent guy, you know the score. It’s a total non-job.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Its not a non-job. Its a down - skilled job, yes, which requires less training, less competence and do less monitoring from management, allowing management to be even less competent than they already are

 

[387star]

RMT recognised the role a few years back

 

[Bikeman78]

As described most eloquently by @bramling upthread, OBS is a role with a permanent cloud over it. It would almost certainly have been abolished if it wasn’t for the accessibility issues - is anyone seriously suggesting otherwise?

Until there is level boarding at all stations, it ought to be pretty safe then. I don't think I've ever seen a ramp deployed on a DOO train at an unstaffed station. Effectively closing dozens more stations to disabled people would go down like a lead balloon.

 

[kw12]

Until there is level boarding at all stations, it ought to be pretty safe then. I don't think I've ever seen a ramp deployed on a DOO train at an unstaffed station.

Not necessarily.

When Thameslink first started serving Horsham they had staff who used to travel on services between Horsham and (IIRC) Three Bridges in order to deploy ramps when needed by passengers at stations where station staff were not present. Around 5 years ago, Thameslink replaced those onboard staff with a (road based) "Mobile Assistance Team" that now provides this assistance. Southern might choose to take a similar approach.

 

[Meerkat]

There aren’t staff out and about doing OBS roles where I work. Come on, you’re an intelligent guy, you know the score. It’s a total non-job.

How can it be a non-job when it is nearer what passengers want than a guard is, and is focussed on the passengers - who after all are the whole point of the railway.

 

[43066]

How can it be a non-job when it is nearer what passengers want than a guard is, and is focussed on the passengers - who after all are the whole point of the railway.

Most passengers just want a visible second person on the train, and will neither know nor care what their job title or responsibilities are. In most cases on the UK network, where said second person remains aboard, that person will be a guard.

If you remove the guards’ safety critical status you:

1. Create a lower skilled, less engaged and less motivated workforce, who will likely become correspondingly less visible/useful to passengers, as appears to have happened with the OBS role;

2. Make it easier for them to be removed entirely to cut costs.

It’s no coincidence that 1 naturally leads to 2, as perfectly demonstrated by the OP, which of course is why the role was imposed on the GTR guards by the DfT in the first place. So, for anyone who genuinely values having a second person on trains, as opposed to just wanting to cut staff and costs to the bone, it’s hard to understand why they wouldn’t be in favour of leaving the guard grade largely as is.

 

[Bikeman78]

Not necessarily.

When Thameslink first started serving Horsham they had staff who used to travel on services between Horsham and (IIRC) Three Bridges in order to deploy ramps when needed by passengers at stations where station staff were not present. Around 5 years ago, Thameslink replaced those onboard staff with a (road based) "Mobile Assistance Team" that now provides this assistance. Southern might choose to take a similar approach.

Has anyone ever attempted to use this service? Any comments as to whether it works? I'll repeat what I've said before. I've never seen a ramp deployed at an unstaffed station on a DOO train over many hundreds of journeys. It's clearly very rare. I suspect that most people would not trust someone to be there to assist them on or off the train. On the other hand, I've seen dozens of people in the Cardiff valleys being assisted on or off the train by the guard.

 

[43066]

Has anyone ever attempted to use this service? Any comments as to whether it works? I'll repeat what I've said before. I've never seen a ramp deployed at an unstaffed station on a DOO train over many hundreds of journeys. It's clearly very rare. I suspect that most people would not trust someone to be there to assist them on or off the train. On the other hand, I've seen dozens of people in the Cardiff valleys being assisted on or off the train by the guard.

From experience of working both types of services the key benefit is that disabled travellers (especially wheelchair users) get is something closer to “turn up and go”, than they receive on the no-staff-but-the-driver DOO networks. Hence fewer of these travellers bother to use the latter systems at all, and wheelchairs in particular are indeed rare to see.

That’s not to say the assistance system always works perfectly on better staffed trains, of course!

@kingqueen might be able to provide a more informed viewpoint from a regular assistance user’s perspective.

 

[Krokodil]

How can it be a non-job when it is nearer what passengers want than a guard is

Is it? What exactly do the passengers want, is there a survey somewhere?

If they do want a greater staff presence (probably true) has anyone done a study to see whether OBS' are more or less visible than guards are? From reading this thread, it seems that there are just as many back cab dwellers among OBS' as among guards.

 

[Meerkat]

Most passengers just want a visible second person on the train, and will neither know nor care what their job title or responsibilities are. In most cases on the UK network, where said second person remains aboard, that person will be a guard.

If you remove the guards’ safety critical status you:

1. Create a lower skilled, less engaged and less motivated workforce, who will likely become correspondingly less visible/useful to passengers, as appears to have happened with the OBS role;

2. Make it easier for them to be removed entirely to cut costs.

It’s no coincidence that 1 naturally leads to 2, as perfectly demonstrated by the OP, which of course is why the role was imposed on the GTR guards by the DfT in the first place. So, for anyone who genuinely values having a second person on trains, as opposed to just wanting to cut staff and costs to the bone, it’s hard to understand why they wouldn’t be in favour of leaving the guard grade largely as is.

Why do you assume a lower skilled job is less motivated? That only really applies to those who were guards and are now bitter OBS, and ignores that customer service is a skill. What skills would a guard on these services regularly use - being skilled in ways that are rarely needed is demotivating and gives an excuse not to do the customer service.
Why wouldn't people prefer a 2nd person on the train who is primarily there to help them, and costs the taxpayer less?

 

[bramling]

How can it be a non-job when it is nearer what passengers want than a guard is, and is focussed on the passengers - who after all are the whole point of the railway.

I’m not convinced passengers particularly care whether there’s any kind of second person on the train. My local train service has been DOO all my life, and no one round here seems particularly bothered by it. Though friends from other parts of the country have certainly passed comment on it.

Where a second properly trained person does make a difference is in the Lewisham or Kentish Town scenarios. Ultimately it’s for politicians to decide whether they want that, and for people to decide whether they wish to pay for it.

For most people the presence of an OBS offers little. It doesn’t really help them in an emergency, and most people don’t require assistance, questions answered or whatever. Hence the view that the only real reason the role has survived at all is due to the issue of accessibility.

 

[Krokodil]

I’m not convinced passengers particularly care whether there’s any kind of second person on the train.

They care enough when their daughter is on a late-night train, alone in the carriage with a creepy stranger. Having a human patrolling is vital (I've ejected creeps from trains before)

 

[Bletchleyite]

They care enough when their daughter is on a late-night train, alone in the carriage with a creepy stranger. Having a human patrolling is vital (I've ejected creeps from trains before)

DOO doesn't bother me but my sister said it bothers her had Merseyrail got rid of guards. I suspect there's likely to be a fairly marked male/female split in views.

 

[Chester1]

DOO doesn't bother me but my sister said it bothers her had Merseyrail got rid of guards. I suspect there's likely to be a fairly marked male/female split in views.

Merseyrail eventually seems to have reached a decent compromise. The second person remains safety critical but the features of the new rolling stock have limited their role in dispatch and made the job more customer service focused.

Some people seem to think opening and closing doors is higher status than checking tickets or giving advice to passengers!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail eventually seems to have reached a decent compromise. The second person remains safety critical but the features of the new rolling stock have limited their role in dispatch and made the job more customer service focused.

I've also seen a near-serious accident avoided (very similar to the famous James St one but with the drunken idiot going over to the train after it was dispatched, and the driver clearly saw it in the cameras and stopped) that may not have been avoided if the train wasn't camera-based "DOO" (unless it was stock where the guard leant out of the droplight when departing*).

There's actually a reasonable amount to be said for the idea of the guard acting as a dispatcher rather than actually pressing the button. It means two pairs of eyes check things, not one.

* Merseyrail practice was for years for the guard to leave their door open until the train was out of the platform - it'd have been seen in that case too.

 

[Chester1]

I've also seen a near-serious accident avoided (very similar to the famous James St one but with the drunken idiot going over to the train after it was dispatched, and the driver clearly saw it in the cameras and stopped) that may not have been avoided if the train wasn't camera-based "DOO" (unless it was stock where the guard leant out of the droplight when departing*).

There's actually a reasonable amount to be said for the idea of the guard acting as a dispatcher rather than actually pressing the button. It means two pairs of eyes check things, not one.

* Merseyrail practice was for years for the guard to leave their door open until the train was out of the platform - it'd have been seen in that case too.

I might be wrong but I think Merseyrail's procedures for 777s is essentially DOO with a compulsory second person (I can't remember their title). The second person's role is to step onto the platform and check if anyone needs assistance and provide it (which is rarer with level boarding at most stations). They swipe their key card to tell the driver they are back on board the train. This saves them a lot of time compared with the traditional guard role on a metro line with very frequent stops and allows more time to check tickets and help pasengers.

 

[43066]

Why do you assume a lower skilled job is less motivated?

Because it’s inevitably going to be less rewarding; there’s basically no need to do anything other than sit in the back cab, look out for wheelchair users, and leave the announcements to the PIS.

Put another way, many of the guards I work thrive on providing customer service (to the point where they don’t want to become drivers, despite the pay rise), yet none of them seem to think becoming OBSs would improve the service they can offer!

That only really applies to those who were guards and are now bitter OBS, and ignores that customer service is a skill. What skills would a guard on these services regularly use - being skilled in ways that are rarely needed is demotivating and gives an excuse not to do the customer service.

On the contrary, up until GTR guards converted to OBS, their skills were in constant use as they dispatched trains at the majority of stations!

Guards on the similar SE mainline network today can be seen dispatching from different locations, moving through the train, interacting with passengers etc. I have my ticket checked on the majority of journeys I make on their SE mainline network - contrast that with the reports on here about GTR OBSs not bothering.

Why wouldn't people prefer a 2nd person on the train who is primarily there to help them, and costs the taxpayer less?

Other than a slightly lower training budget, they don’t cost the taxpayer much less; they’re paid the same (or more) than some guards.

You’ve previously stated that you want to see the railway subsidised less, want more money put into buses/roads etc., so no surprise you would like to see on train staff de-skilled and made more vulnerable to removal. You’re perfectly entitled to that view but, as I said in post #108, passengers such as myself who value a second person aboard, and want that person to remain long term, are better off with guards.

Merseyrail eventually seems to have reached a decent compromise. The second person remains safety critical but the features of the new rolling stock have limited their role in dispatch and made the job more customer service focused.

The Merseyrail network isn’t comparable to mainline Southern, and the solution reached there isn’t analogous to the GTR OBSs we are discussing in this thread, as the latter are not safety critical.

Some people seem to think opening and closing doors is higher status than checking tickets or giving advice to passengers!

It’s dispatch risk, not “opening and closing doors”, that is the nub of the issue. It’s certainly higher status than ticket checks/answering questions because, if a train isn’t dispatched, it can’t operate!

On board staff being responsible for dispatch isn’t mutually exclusive to providing customer service; guards can do both. OBS do customer service only and, if they’re abolished, will do neither.

So long as the train can operate, customer service is merely a “nice to have” and experience network wide shows that, on most services where dispatch responsibility has been moved to the driver, there’s now nobody at all on board to check tickets, or give advice to passengers.

 

[Chester1]

It’s dispatch risk, not “opening and closing doors”, that is the nub of the issue (and it’s higher status because it a train isn’t dispatched, it can’t operate!).

On board staff being responsible for dispatch isn’t mutually exclusive to providing customer service; guards can do both. OBS do customer service only and, if they’re abolished, will do neither.

So long as the train can operate, customer service is merely a “nice to have” and experience network wide shows that, on most services where dispatch responsibility has been moved to the driver, there’s now nobody at all on board to check tickets, or give advice to passengers.

I am aware that Merseyrail and Southern second person roles are different, I was arguing that Merseyrail was a better compromise between a traditional guard and dispatch and DOO without a second person. Guards can do customer service but when there are frequent stops that aspect of the role is automatically limited. Merseyrail has far too many stops for a traditional guard to do much ticket checking. Merseyrail's new role is safety critical without having dispatch risk. They are only signalling to the driver that they are onboard the train. The 777s are not allowed to be used in passenger service without them.

Its very strange that there appears to be a group that only wants a second person onboard if they have dispatch risk. If the next government decided to introduce OBS on more DOO services wouldn't that be an improvement for passengers?