McNulty Report

[ANorthernGuard]

I don't know if you are saying it, and I apologise in advance as the term 'well the guard' is confusing me slightly, but I understand there was no requirement for the guard to check the starting signal at that time, the rulebook was subsequently changed so the guard did check it before giving the right away. I understand BR weren't happy with drivers not having sole responsibility for checking signals and that there had been other accidents over the years previously? Am I correct in thinking that this rule had been in place before then changed , and subsequently altered once more in light of this accident?

Very rarely I have heard stories of everyone from the Platform Staff thru to the Guard then the driver ALL not checking the Signal (that is very bad) but "normally" 2 Pairs of eyes are always better than one (IMO)

 

[Metroland]

I don't know if you are saying it, and I apologise in advance as the term 'well the guard' is confusing me slightly, but I understand there was no requirement for the guard to check the starting signal at that time, the rulebook was subsequently changed so the guard did check it before giving the right away. I understand BR weren't happy with drivers not having sole responsibility for checking signals and that there had been other accidents over the years previously? Am I correct in thinking that this rule had been in place before then changed , and subsequently altered once more in light of this accident?

The point is you can cite incidents where guards have been used as second pairs of eyes, but you can also cite ones, where the guard gives right-away against a signal (because he doesn't check him/herself) and causes the Driver to set off against the signal. Rules were changed in 1979 so the platform staff/guards have to check the aspect, but it doesn't mean mistakes can't be made.

In a recent RSSB report on DRA

Some of the drivers felt that even if the DRA was used properly, a driver could still have a SAS SPAD if they automatically reset the DRA without checking the signal. This was thought to be most likely to happen when the driver receives the 'right away' signal from the guard and then automatically sets off. One of the factors linked to this that some drivers mentioned was that guards would sometimes give the 'right away' signal without having checked the aspect themselves. Similarly, some said that the lack of guards on some stations was 'another pair of eyes lost' that could help avoid SAS SPADs.

RSSB also found DOO to be statistically no less safe in a 2001 report.

So it's all fairly inconclusive from a safety point of view.

Nevertheless signals where there is a SPAD risk that will cause a collision these days are protected by TPWS, which further reduces risk.

 

[1V53]

For once I agree, to a point, with Metroland. Familiarity breeds contempt and it is possible for a guard to give the right away and for a driver to take it without checking.

However there are currently far more trains with guards than those without so I guess if this report is implemented only time will tell which is safer.

I've known station staff give a tip against red, I've also done it once early on as a guard and the driver calmly gave me one back. Stupid error on my part and pure case of familiarity breeding contempt at that time, and a lesson learned.

My concern with this report, as stated before, is that the whole industry needs a shake up, starting with the franchise system through to the leasing companies. It seems to be looking at savings through staff which will need millions spending on infrastructure first, whereas slowly nationalising the railways, taking TOC's back as franchises expire, ending the millions being extracted in profits by rosco's and TOC's and managing the railways effectively seems a way to save billions with relatively little outlay?

Sure, time will come within that process to bring in the DOO, or even driverless trains, if they are so intent on doing so, but to me they do seem to be putting the cart before the horse.

 

[FGWman]

What happens at some stations with despatch staff is that they operated the CD (Close Doors) and RA indicator to the driver. As this is interlinked with the signalling system then you cant get a ding ding and away incident.

I was in Belgium last year and the guard operated the RA indicator to the driver. All door were shut except his local door. He then stepped out onto the platform operated the RA indicator. Now the driver could not move as he did not have traction interlock. Guard then stepped back onto the train closed his door. Driver gets interlock and off he goes. Quite clever I though and no chance of a despatch against red.

 

[Ihatehadfield]

So when is this report being discussed/voted or whatever is they will be doing with it,in parliament?

 

[Anvil1984]

What happens at some stations with despatch staff is that they operated the CD (Close Doors) and RA indicator to the driver. As this is interlinked with the signalling system then you cant get a ding ding and away incident.

I was in Belgium last year and the guard operated the RA indicator to the driver. All door were shut except his local door. He then stepped out onto the platform operated the RA indicator. Now the driver could not move as he did not have traction interlock. Guard then stepped back onto the train closed his door. Driver gets interlock and off he goes. Quite clever I though and no chance of a despatch against red.

Unfortunately not all British trains have the crew doors on interlock (150/1)

 

[1V53]

27.05.11

RAIL UNION RMT today exposed the man leading the attack on rail workers pay and working conditions, Sir Roy McNulty for his role in presiding over a culture of bonuses and corporate excess at the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA).

Following a series of questions from RMT Parliamentary Convenor John McDonnell, RMT can reveal that:

The eight directors of the ODA have shared in a £1.5 million bonus pot - a culture of excess overseen by McNulty in his role as Chair of the ODA remuneration committee.
Figures obtained by the RMT show that average executive salaries at the ODA top £200,000 on Sir Roy’s watch.
RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said:

“Last week Sir Roy McNulty was attacking rail workers wages and conditions and today we can expose the fact that he is presiding over a culture of bonuses and corporate excess at the ODA which make his executives look like a syndicate of lottery winners who come up trumps every day of the week.

“The hypocrisy of a quango chief telling rail staff, out there doing safety-critical jobs serving the public 24/7, that they should take cuts in pay while in his own back yard executive wages and bonuses are letting rip just defies belief.

“We will make sure that our members are fully aware of Sir Roy’s “do what I say, not as I do” approach to our industry and that will simply galvanise them for any fight ahead to defend rail jobs and working conditions.”

ends

 

[BestWestern]

So there we have it then, another attack on the 'ordinary' people by a priviledged someone who will never have to feel the sharp end of a cutback. How ironic that they chose a guy in charge of the Olympics, the most pointless and excessive waste of this country's money for decades, to have a pop at our vital transport network. Perhaps we should just close all the railway lines and divert the money into something much more worthwhile like building sports stadiums with a useful lifespan of two weeks or so!! :roll:

 

[1V53]

The thing is, people slate Bob Crow for his views and actions, but when you see what two-faced people he is fighting, then I know which side I'd rather be on.

 

[Goldfish62]

The thing is, people slate Bob Crow for his views and actions, but when you see what two-faced people he is fighting, then I know which side I'd rather be on.

Yeah, but I don't see Bob giving up his cheap social housing to someone less fortune and buying a place like the rest of us. Who's two faced now?

 

[Greenback]

And if he had given up the house he would be accused of being a champagne socialist if he had bought anything with more than two bedrooms and an outside toilet!

 

[WestCoast]

And if he had given up the house he would be accused of being a champagne socialist if he had bought anything with more than two bedrooms and an outside toilet!

Even so, it's not right that he stays in that house. Why should he when there is a social housing shortage?

He could definitely afford to buy a similar property, and then I can't see how he would be labeled a "champagne socialist"; it's not like he would be buying a mansion!

 

[Greenback]

I'm not sure where I stand on this oen to be honest. I cnas ee both sides of the argument. I don;t really believe that people should be forced to move out of their home if or when their circumstances change - for a start some sort of threshold would have to be set at which someone is forced out, and I'm not at all sure who should decide that, or how high it should be.

One of the concerns would be that it could act as disincentive to bettering oneself - crossing the arbitrary threshold and being forced into buying a home may end up costing a lot more and would eman you are better off by staying on an income just below whatever the threshold is. It could be anothe rform of benefits trap.

On the other hand, I can see that where there is a shortage of suitbale low cost accommodation, there is an argument that it should be prioritised for those who are in need of it, particularly when some people occupying the cheaper homes can afford to buy their own.

What is really needed, I think, is for local authorities to actually effectively requsition empty properties and use them as social housing.

Oh dear, I think this has gone completely off topic!

 

[BestWestern]

Oh dear, I think this has gone completely off topic!

LOL, indeed, but doesn't it always?!!

I completely agree with you, it's a tricky one to judge really. I do feel that it is perhaps a slightly misguided tactic to try and appear to be one of the 'common men' by living in a 'council house' when clearly Mr Crow earns substantially more than any of us who contribute towards his salary. He does, of course, work hard for his money (and yes, I realise I am inviting some debate with that statement!!) travelling all about the place campaigning and suchlike, and I certainly feel he is worthy of this position, if perhaps a tad too militant at times! :roll: But I don't understand how it can be allowed for somebody to remain as an occupant of this type of property when their income rockets, to be honest it's a little unfair.

 

[313103]

Yeah, but I don't see Bob giving up his cheap social housing to someone less fortune and buying a place like the rest of us. Who's two faced now?

Since when was you forced to buy your own house? And why should people be tied up to mortgage for 30-50 years of someones life?

It is a choice you have made and don't say you did it to free up social housing, successive Government's have forced councils to sell social housing and therefore forcing every body else to either buy at extortionate rates or rent from equally extratorrent rents. Anyway it wasnt just the poor of us (well i am meant to middle class according to my salary) who use to live in council housing, even the well off people use to live in council housing. Actually id rather it still be could council housing rather then socia housing, it has that ring of class about it that people on here deny exists. However i have digressed just like you have from the topic in hand.

 

[Zoe]

The Tories are changing it so new social tenants only get time limited tenancies. At the end of these tenancies, if circumstances have changed then they can be evicted.

 

[313103]

Even so, it's not right that he stays in that house. Why should he when there is a social housing shortage?

He could definitely afford to buy a similar property, and then I can't see how he would be labeled a "champagne socialist"; it's not like he would be buying a mansion!

As mentioned above who created the social (sorry Council) housing shortage in the first place. He could afford to buy but the qusetion has to be Why should he? Even if he did he would still be called amoingst other things a champagne socilaist.

 

[jon0844]

The Tories are changing it so new social tenants only get time limited tenancies. At the end of these tenancies, if circumstances have changed then they can be evicted.

Is that a bad thing? A couple get a huge house with loads of children, then keep it when the children move out? Meanwhile there's another family with children forced to be in a cramped 2 bedroom house.

If you rent, a landlord can - given enough notice - ask for you to leave. However, some people assume they have a council/social house for life.

Now, it may grab the headlines with a nice old lady in her 5 bed home is being forced 'onto the streets' (obviously she isn't, but that's how the Daily Mail would put it - and mention all the work she did over the years, paying taxes etc) but I personally think it's a good idea.

Anyway, back on topic...

 

[WestCoast]

He could afford to buy but the qusetion has to be Why should he? Even if he did he would still be called amoingst other things a champagne socilaist.

Because it's morally the correct thing to do. He simply doesn't need the state's support anymore, which others do. It doesn't matter who created the housing shortage or about any other irrelevancies. End of.

 

[Zoe]

Because it's the morally correct thing to do. He simply doesn't need the state's support, which others do.

How is it morally correct? Who defines this standard? His rent is going to a council or a housing association and this can be used to build new housing. It's better than it going to private landlords that just want to make as much money out of possible for themselves out of the rent.

 

[WestCoast]

How is it morally correct? Who defines this standard? His rent is going to a council or a housing association and this can be used to build new housing. It's better than it going to private landlords that just want to make as much money out of possible for themselves out of the rent.

The housing waiting lists are enormous, enough housing for everyone is never going to be built. Obviously everyone's morals are different - I personally think he shouldn't need subsidised housing on that salary.

I believe that nowadays housing association/council properties should be for those in need only, although I recognise that there is a division about this between London and the rest of the country, where private housing is relatively cheaper.

In other countries, where there is less social housing stock, on that salary they would point you in the direction of the letting agency or estate agent.

 

[313103]

The housing waiting lists are enormous, enough housing for everyone is never going to be built. Obviously everyone's morals are different - I personally think he shouldn't need subsidised housing on that salary.

I believe that nowadays housing association/council properties should be for those in need only, although I recognise that there is a division about this between London and the rest of the country, where private housing is relatively cheaper.

In other countries, where there is less social housing stock, on that salary they would point you in the direction of the letting agency or estate agent.

Ok i take point for arguments sake. Now i take home about £1,200 a month and my wife about £400.00. We live in a one bedroom flat, that is run by a Housing association. Our rent is £98.00 a week. After paying all my bills i have around £20.00 per week left to spend on what is considered luxuries ie clothing etc. I would say that i am not a person in need, as i do not need Government handouts.
A quick search of 'PRIVATE' Rents in my area are 1 room from £95.00 pw (note not one bedroom ONE Room only in a flatshare, so you share the bathroom and the Lavortory), studio flat at £120.00pw, found on zoopla. The absolute average price paid for propeties in Islington is £436,117. The cheapest one bedroom flat i could find is £285.95 pw. Tell me pray where do i get that amount of money from to pay that rent. I did find find cheaper flats but that would mean moving to Stanford-le Hope in Essex or Dunstable in Bedfordshire. Do you propose that i should move to either of these places? Just in order that i come out of social housing?

 

[WestCoast]

Do you propose that i should move to either of these places? Just in order that i come out of social housing?

No. I thought this was about Mr Crow? Someone in your position is much more suited to the social housing than he is. Social housing can be a very good thing, when tenancies are held by the right people!

I would say that i am not a person in need, as i do not need Government handouts.

I define "need", in this case, as an inability to afford private properties in the local area - not as poverty or anything close to that. In your situation, you deserve the property.

Mr Crow is taking home in the region of £12,000 a month, plus any other household income - I am sure he could afford to rent/buy a similar home in his area. Is it right that he denies people who can't afford to rent a private property the chance of a council house? Ordinary people in a similar situation to your circumstances. Again, the housing shortage and huge waiting lists mean this is a major problem.

Unless, you want everyone to live in social housing, regardless of income. In which case, the government better start building furiously!

It's worth going back to my point before about London, more people are going to need social housing, because the properties are dearer to rent/buy. Some people would argue that if you need/want to live in Islington, then you'll have to pay the market price. But then again, that's partly why commuter trains need to run to bring those from Stanford-le-Hope or Dunstable into the city.

 

[Zoe]

With social housing though there is security. Even if you could afford to rent privately and could be made redundant as may well be the case for some of the guards then you could end up evicted as most landlords refuse to rent to anyone claiming housing benefit. In some cases it is actually the policy on the landlord's mortgage or insurance that they may not rent to tenants claiming benefits so would have no choice but to evict.

 

[Goldfish62]

Since when was you forced to buy your own house? And why should people be tied up to mortgage for 30-50 years of someones life?

It is a choice you have made and don't say you did it to free up social housing, successive Government's have forced councils to sell social housing and therefore forcing every body else to either buy at extortionate rates or rent from equally extratorrent rents. Anyway it wasnt just the poor of us (well i am meant to middle class according to my salary) who use to live in council housing, even the well off people use to live in council housing. Actually id rather it still be could council housing rather then socia housing, it has that ring of class about it that people on here deny exists. However i have digressed just like you have from the topic in hand.

If you can't see that my comment was relevant to this discussion then that's your loss. The truth is, of course, that you don't like the fact that I have dared criticise your glorious leader.

I don't like McNulty's various "trappings of office", but neither do I like Crow's occupation of social housing on his (justifiable IMO) salary.

 

[WatcherZero]

NR has announced it is going to hive off its project planning into a seperate subsidary which will have to compete for contracts by the parent company, it will also be free to compete against the consultancy arms of SNCF and DB abroad in order to gain experience and new ideas as well as lowering costs. NR says its approached every couple of months by foreign nations asking for help with refurbishing, maintaining or expanding their railways and has been unable to help. NR stresses it will be purely planning and design work and it wont be competing for foreign construction contracts.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/108de7e6-96b6-11e0-baca-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1PIWClFYh

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

NR has announced it is going to hive off its project planning into a seperate subsidary which will have to compete for contracts by the parent company..... NR stresses it will be purely planning and design work and it wont be competing for foreign construction contracts.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/108de7e6-96b6-11e0-baca-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1PIWClFYh

The article by Roger Wright is quite concise in its summary of the performance of Network Rail in terms of its performance as a franchaisee on the British rail network and then draws the attention of the reader to the possibilities afforded by the proposed new overseas venture, some of which you state in your posting. It makes mention of the United Arab Emirates in the talk of overseas expansion of Network Rail, but it is clearly stated that any new overseas work would be limited to consultancy work only.

It states that approval is required from the Regulator, but since this consultancy work is targeted at the overseas market, it surely cannot affect any home involvement projects.

 

[1V53]

I assume you mean "Network Rail" rather than Northern Rail? I can't read the link as it says it's only available for FT subscribers.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I assume you mean "Network Rail" rather than Northern Rail? I can't read the link as it says it's only available for FT subscribers.

Yes, I have edited my posting. I have been dealing with all things "Northern Rail" connected for most of the early morning and it just stuck in my mind.

However, just imagine the scenario if Northern Rail did get as far as the United Arab Emirates....Class 142 Pacers all over the desert