Gatwick Express Industrial Relations

[tony6499]

Because of money. Under BR a driver was paid extra for a shift, I think it was about £9.50 a turn, which in those days was quite a chunk of money, then there was mileage payments as well so if you did a DOO and mileage turn, you could rake in another £6-10 on top of that too, so you can see that in BR days with the wages being what they were, it was quite a lot of money to be made by selling the guards down the river and BR weren't going to say no as it saved them a guards wages.

Very much so, and guards were there own worse enemies too at the time

 

[IKB]

Statistics give you the best possible objective understanding, which is necessary in making sensible decisions.

How do you propose to allocating resources to risks without any regard to how great any of those risks are?

I remember when we had defibrillator machines installed into police custody suites, for the obvious reason to resuscitate detainees if the worst happened.

If you used statistics as a guide you would never have authorised the costly outlay, as statistically they were hardly (if ever) used/required.

But we don't need statistics to tell us that people have heart attacks. We know there is the potential for it happen. So such equipment is purchased to mitigate the risk of when it does happen. The statistical frequency of incidents was irrelevant.

Statistics might show you emerging trends - e.g. increased frequency of incidents, near misses.

But, alone, a lack of historical data on a particular incident happening doesn't mean you cannot risk assess the potential impact of it happening.

 

[jopsuk]

I dunno. There's various drugs and treatments that might save people. But they;re expensive, and the NHS has an (ever) limited budget. Which is why NICE has to put a price on a life, a price on quality of life and then assess if an intervention is value for money versus that.

 

[AngusH]

If you used statistics as a guide you would never have authorised the costly outlay, as statistically they were hardly (if ever) used/required.

I think it's usually worked out as sort of a combination of the probability of an event combined with the cost of that event if it occurs (including things like reputation damage).

So something that doesn't happen very often, but is very damaging (like someone dying in custody) scores higher than something that happens often but isn't very important.

(added)
In this case I suppose the risk is an accident with driver incapacitated and unassisted evacuation, which doesn't happen very often thankfully. I can't estimate the probability outcome.

Also obviously the danger of passengers being trapped or injured as the train departs, as has been mentioned. I don't know the probability of that either, but it seems more slightly more frequent.

I'd like to think that someone in the management of the relevant companies has carefully studied the risks and costs for this decision.

 

[exile]

Currently it's not seen as worth having armed troops on every train or plane to combat terrorist attacks, or policemen on every service to deal with incidents. It's not seen as worth eliminating all level crossings, or having traffic lights at every road crossing or junction. There are many other instances, not just on railways, where the consequences of a disaster are combined with probability to decide how much to spend trying to avert it. It sounds heartless but unless limitless money and resources are available it's inevitable.

 

[philthetube]

This. A million times this. Pilots, at great cost, are taught to land on water. In modern commercial aviation it has only successfully been achieved once, but that once is enough.

Why wait for an accident if it can be prevented?

You could use this argument to not train steward/stewardesses on planes, or maybe even not to carry them.

 

[Antman]

Currently it's not seen as worth having armed troops on every train or plane to combat terrorist attacks, or policemen on every service to deal with incidents. It's not seen as worth eliminating all level crossings, or having traffic lights at every road crossing or junction. There are many other instances, not just on railways, where the consequences of a disaster are combined with probability to decide how much to spend trying to avert it. It sounds heartless but unless limitless money and resources are available it's inevitable.

That's it exactly, cost effectiveness inevitably has to come into it at some point.

 

[The Ham]

One point is that is worth remembering, under H&S you have to record near misses. As such they come under the Statistics when determining what is needed, even though no actual harm has befallen anyone. For the simple reason that if has nearly happened it could well happen.

If staff want to stop DDO in it's tracks they need to record all near misses that they observe so that the TOC's have the statistics to show the DfT that it would be unsafe.

That may week include any large tree or branch which has fallen close to the line which had the risk of falling on the line, any drivers that they see flying level crossings and other time that something could have caused the train and it's occupants harm.

 

[TEW]

It means that the "statistics" would say that Stratford isn't as dangerous as everyone knows it is. It's down as one of ASLEF's top 10 high risk stations due to the volume of people using the station and the narrow island platforms. But because there hasn't been a serious incident there yet, your "statistics" would say it isn't as dangerous. That is until some is injured or killed!

I'm not surprised that ASLEF consider it to be so risky. The fast line islands is an accident waiting to happen in my opinion. It's pretty astonishing that drivers often have to self-despatch trains on that platform given how busy it is, and they aren't short trains either.

 

[NSEFAN]

Near misses may be less likely recorded on DOO services, as the driver may not realise and the pax might just shrug it off.

 

[Dave1987]

I'm not surprised that ASLEF consider it to be so risky. The fast line islands is an accident waiting to happen in my opinion. It's pretty astonishing that drivers often have to self-despatch trains on that platform given how busy it is, and they aren't short trains either.

Yes but all this statistical nonsense would say it's not an accident waiting to happen simply because no one has been injured or killed yet. I.e waiting for someone to be injured or killed instead of preventing it!

 

[BRblue]

OK..... for the benefit of anyone not employed by the rail industry.
Those of us who do work in the industry have the SAFETY,SAFETY,SAFETY, message drummed into us over and over again, and this is why some of us are reacting the way we are.
If we do anything which "could" not "does" impair safety we end up in hot water and could well end up losing our jobs. And as we have seen when things do unfortunately go wrong a court appearance and possible custodial sentence may be the outcome. So is it any surprise that we are vehemently against anything which could impact safety when we know what the fallout will be.
Its easy to talk about possibilities and probabilities when your livelihood and possibly your liberty are not at stake!

Having just read some of the posts below it is apparent that I have wasted my time! :roll::roll:

 

[Dent]

Because you look at what the actual risks are and put procedures in place to mitigate those risks. So you prevent an incident occurring before people become a statistic by getting injured or killed!

How do you determine the "actual risks" without regard to the probability of something happening?

It means that the "statistics" would say that Stratford isn't as dangerous as everyone knows it is.

(my bold)

How did "everyone" acquire this knowledge that you claim they have?

The phrase "everyone knows" generally means that some assume based on no real evidence, and are confusing their unwarranted assumption with fact.

But because there hasn't been a serious incident there yet, your "statistics" would say it isn't as dangerous. That is until some is injured or killed!

What do you mean by "my" statistics? I have not presented any statistics about Stratford Stations or anything else, merely pointed out why statistics have to be used as part of any risk assessment.

 

[SPADTrap]

How did "everyone" acquire this knowledge that you claim they have?

The phrase "everyone knows" generally means that some assume based on no real evidence, and are confusing their unwarranted assumption with fact.

Because its their heads on the line if something goes wrong. I guess yours isn't?

Because they operate from that station daily.

 

[Dent]

Because its their heads on the line if something goes wrong. I guess yours isn't?

Because they operate from that station daily.

None of which explains what reliable, verifiable source the "knowledge" that allegedly "everyone" possesses came from.

 

[SPADTrap]

None of which explains what reliable, verifiable source the "knowledge" that allegedly "everyone" possesses came from.

It comes from their own experience of departing with 12 car EMUs and Mk3 hauled sets and the things they've seen and experienced while doing so. It is a very easy argument to pretend something doesn't exist because there isn't 'hard and fast and verifiable evidence' but that doesn't make it so. By everyone I mean those drivers/guards/platform staff and whoever else works there and bears responsibility for the consequences. I don't need to verify what I've seen for it to be real but you can continue to pretend I'm making it up, I just hope it isn't anyone you know or care about that proves you wrong by getting hurt :cry: :roll:

This all sounds frustratingly familiar!

 

[Dent]

It comes from their own experience of departing with 12 car EMUs and Mk3 hauled sets and the things they've seen and experienced while doing so. It is a very easy argument to pretend something doesn't exist because there isn't 'hard and fast and verifiable evidence' but that doesn't make it so. By everyone I mean those drivers/guards/platform staff and whoever else works there and bears responsibility for the consequences. I don't need to verify what I've seen for it to be real but you can continue to pretend I'm making it up, I just hope it isn't anyone you know or care about that proves you wrong by getting hurt :cry: :roll:

This all sounds frustratingly familiar!

Who is pretending anything? I am certainly not.

All I did was question an unsubstantiated sweeping statement, which is exactly what should be done in an intelligent reasoned discussion.

 

[SPADTrap]

Who is pretending anything? I am certainly not.

All I did was question an unsubstantiated sweeping statement, which is exactly what should be done in an intelligent reasoned discussion.

Consider it substantiated and backed up by a second person who does the job then .

 

[bnm]

We've drifted toward the safety argument around DOO again.

To a laymen like me I wonder which is safer to operate in DOO. A ten car Class 442 with no individual view of each door, or a 12 car 387 with a CCTV system designed specifically to monitor each door?

 

[Skimble19]

We've drifted toward the safety argument around DOO again.

To a laymen like me I wonder which is safer to operate in DOO. A ten car Class 442 with no individual view of each door, or a 12 car 387 with a CCTV system designed specifically to monitor each door?

Well, there's one camera per carriage, which on a 12 car service means you are monitoring 24 doors, via 12 cameras, all on one not particularly large screen. Personally, I suppose it could potentially work at quiet stations, but busy stations would certainly (IMHO) require Platform Staff to dispatch them if no guard is present.. You will always have a much better view and idea of what is going on from the platform than watching a small screen, the same way the guards have a much better view from where they're standing on the train than watching CCTV.

In direct answer to your question though, it would probably make little difference, as the only way you could run a 442 DOO would be if there were platform based DOO equipment (cameras or mirrors).

 

[BRblue]

We've drifted toward the safety argument around DOO again.

To a laymen like me I wonder which is safer to operate in DOO. A ten car Class 442 with no individual view of each door, or a 12 car 387 with a CCTV system designed specifically to monitor each door?

It will always drift towards the safety argument because it is about safety...
Not only from a door opening point of view but from a no longer having a guard point of view.

 

[Antman]

It will always drift towards the safety argument because it is about safety...
Not only from a door opening point of view but from a no longer having a guard point of view.

But this notion that 'safety issues' usurp everything isn't strictly true, as pointed out previously if it were all level crossings would have been closed or replaced by bridges, reality has to take over at some point.

 

[bengley]

We've drifted toward the safety argument around DOO again.

To a laymen like me I wonder which is safer to operate in DOO. A ten car Class 442 with no individual view of each door, or a 12 car 387 with a CCTV system designed specifically to monitor each door?

The cameras are at an angle almost parallel to the train, so trying to view the set of doors furthest from the camera on that coach is almost impossible. You could see if someone was clearly standing there with their arm stuck in the door on a quiet platform, but on a busy platform where people are standing close to the train, this becomes extremely difficult.

Here, I've made what I feel is a fairly accurate representation of the monitors in Railworks (I'm sure any electrostar driver here can vouch for this)

If anything I feel I've been fairly generous with the quality of the images displayed on the monitors too.

[IMG=http://i.imgur.com/8KQ5ddS.jpg]http://i.imgur.com/8KQ5ddS.jpg?1[/IMG]

Larger:
http://i.imgur.com/8KQ5ddS.jpg

Compare this with LU S stock which has images from cameras on the platform wirelessly transmitted to the train cab, providing a far superior angle to view the train from

(not to mention, on LU the images stay visible until the train has fully left the platform, whereas on electrostars the images disappear as soon as the driver selects a power notch - meaning any incident which occurs after the train moves off will not be visible to the driver.)

 

[tony6499]

It's just not about DOO though, it is Southern/GTR trying it on by bypassing signed agreements and Drivers not standing for it.

I will wait and see what happens if/when the first driver is sent home without pay as per the letter sent yesterday as no doubt there would be retaliation from his colleagues.

 

[the sniper]

But this notion that 'safety issues' usurp everything isn't strictly true, as pointed out previously if it were all level crossings would have been closed or replaced by bridges, reality has to take over at some point.

Er, the industry has spent many hundreds of millions of pounds in recent years eliminating level crossings and foot crossings wherever possible and continues to do so. If it were possible all would be closed. Many of these crossing are 'safe' in the great scheme of things.

Where I am the industry has spent millions of pounds erecting small steel palisade fencing at platform ends, featuring an unlocked gate and tiny plastic tank traps, at almost every station across the Midlands. This has been done to theoretically dissuade suicidal people absent mindedly walking off the end off the end of a platform. Now, if you can find any evidence that this has made any difference I'll be impressed, as it's made no discernible difference to number of fatalities or trespass incidents that we see reported... I'm sure the industry considers it money well spent though.

Having to pay to have more than one person look after 100, 400, 600 or even more people on a train though, when that one persons main job isn't to deal with passengers at all, that's crazy excess that can not be justified by the statistics... :roll:

 

[Agent_c]

How do you determine the "actual risks" without regard to the probability of something happening?

The probability of an event occurring that has never occurred before, is not 0.

That it has not occured before makes the job of working out the probability more difficult, but it isn't 0.

 

[D1009]

I notice the 0530 Victoria to Gatwick Airport ran this morning, anyone know the formation?

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

DRIVER : You must not start your train unless you are sure it is safe to do so

What that means in DOO, is that, if it isn't, 100% of the time, on every occasion, maybe 100 times a day is that you're in deep excreta job wise, legally wise, possible prison wise, huge publicity, possible loss of house, family and all the consequences that occur from an error at work

How many people face similar consequences in their job.

A few, but a small percentage compared to the majority of the working population.

I simply can't understand passengers, on this forum, who are paying huge amounts for a ticket, to be advocating a less safe system, with fewer staff. This is not BR days when the network was in decline. Do any of you go on aviation forums, suggesting one pilot per shorthaul flight, and one cabin crew per longhaul flight ?

I can understand you, the Govt. and the general public thinking drivers ( and guards ), are overpaid layabouts, with a militant union , who should be grateful to get up at 0300 for 3 weeks on the bounce like I just have, before a couple of days off before doing two weeks of nights for £ 2.60 a day and a bag of pork scratchings, but they in general know nothing bar their own entrenched ignorance.

This is a railway forum, for people who should surely, know a little about the railway

This Gatwick express, Govia, letter to staff is quite frankly unbelievable

 

[dgl]

As a passenger I am forever glad that the main company that I use, SWT, has guards on all services and will not run a train without one, I cannot believe that a mode of transport that a lot of the time runs in the middle of nowhere, can't stop instantly when it sees an obstruction (animals on the line being one, or something some oik has placed/dropped on the track), and that some people/companies believe that it is sensible to not have someone extra that is safety trained and has the basic route knowledge to help when there is an emergency.

Would a passenger know what to do if the driver was incapacitated and there was no phone signal to call for assistance? And would they even be able to tell them where they were?

Also can the driver provide passengers advice/help if they need it during their journey and should they be distracted from their main and safety critical job of driving the train.

There are many ways to save money on the railways but getting rid of guards is definitely not it and never will be.

 

[cjmillsnun]

As a passenger I am forever glad that the main company that I use, SWT, has guards on all services and will not run a train without one, I cannot believe that a mode of transport that a lot of the time runs in the middle of nowhere, can't stop instantly when it sees an obstruction (animals on the line being one, or something some oik has placed/dropped on the track), and that some people/companies believe that it is sensible to not have someone extra that is safety trained and has the basic route knowledge to help when there is an emergency.

Would a passenger know what to do if the driver was incapacitated and there was no phone signal to call for assistance? And would they even be able to tell them where they were?

Also can the driver provide passengers advice/help if they need it during their journey and should they be distracted from their main and safety critical job of driving the train.

There are many ways to save money on the railways but getting rid of guards is definitely not it and never will be.

Sadly I suspect whomever gets the South Western franchise next time will have their hand forced by DafT to do away with guards.