McNulty Report

[WatcherZero]

They must have been made compliant with the DDA legislation by the 2019 deadline.

 

[FGWman]

We have yet to see (not that i or anyone wishes to) what would happen if all trains with just a driver on board were involved in a incident where the drivers are incapacitated and no other member of staff is on board.

Great Heck ?

 

[BestWestern]

Technically the staff only have to be there when boarding ramps are required, if the station has level boarding the passenger is expected to manage by themselves or with the help of a travelling companion.

Boarding ramps will always be required; how else can a wheelchair make it across a gap of several inches??!

 

[Zoe]

They must have been made compliant with the DDA legislation by the 2019 deadline.

Isn't it actually 1 January 2020 that is the first day where all rail vehicles must comply?

 

[Ferret]

Isn't it actually 1 January 2020 that is the first day where all rail vehicles must comply?

That rings a bell.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah 1st of January but since it must be before that date everyone usually refers to it as 'by 2019 or in 2019' as if it wasnt then it would be in violation on the first day of 2020, the deadline is really midnight on December 31st.

 

[Ferret]

Yeah 1st of January but since it must be before that date everyone usually refers to it as 'by 2019 or in 2019' as if it wasnt then it would be in violation on the first day of 2020, the deadline is really midnight on December 31st.

Isn't that what Zoe just said? Lol!

 

[Smudger105e]

Editorial from today's Daily Mirror

UNFARE REPORT

Scrapping cheap fares and flaying
railway staff on pay is no way to
improve train travel

Quangocrat Sir Roy McNulty's report is way
off track in suggesting putting up some fares
and targetting employees.

The cost of the rail network has rocketed
since privatisation, with commercial
operators banking a packet in subsidies.

Putting the system back together and ending
huge profits is the answer, not cutting the wages
of hard-working victims of crazy privatisation.

All formatting is theirs, not mine! And this seems to be almost word for word what is being said by some posters on here, innit?

 

[WatcherZero]

Its funny how the media keep reporting it as raising ticket prices when it made quite clear the point would be balancing out ticket prices for NO net change. Peak ticket prices would fall.

 

[BestWestern]

Its funny how the media keep reporting it as raising ticket prices when it made quite clear the point would be balancing out ticket prices for NO net change. Peak ticket prices would fall.

Indeed, but I guess it will affect the many who travel just either side of the peak times; TBH the argument that the overall levels will 'balance' is a bit of a washout of you're one of those who has to pay more for your ticket! :roll:

 

[First class]

I hope that Merseyrail extends to DOO.

The guards are effectively "non-commercial" so I doubt many people will notice anyway.

The 507/508 stock should be compatible anyway, (ECS movements already are DOO). CCTV monitors exist at stations with curved platforms as well as OFF indicators. Any future rolling stock will undoubtedly have provision for DOO.

~£3.5m pa saving there on guards. However the cost of removing the guards may be prohibitive to a DOO system.

Also, the amount of booking offices that would close under these proposals would be substantial to Merseyrail, other than Hooton, 6 Underground Stations, Southport, Liverpool South Parkway and Chester, the other 50 odd stations would become unstaffed in McNulty has his way. Perhaps it is wasteful for some of these stations to be staffed from first to last train...

 

[yorksrob]

Did not BR already have seperate accounting units for the different parts of the company and operate an internal market?
I have seen published Thesis on its internal personnel market circa 1985.

Yes it did (see my above post)

The point being that it was seperated along logical lines, i.e NSE, IC and RR, but it was never completely fragmented so that the profitable bits could ultimately subsidise the loss making bits.

 

[Zoe]

NSE, IC and RR, but it was never completely fragmented so that the profitable bits could ultimately subsidise the loss making bits.

Yes but you couldn't have the sectors owning the infrastructure unless the accounting was clearly separate. It would be more logical to keep the regions responsible for infrastructure with the sectors just operating the trains.

 

[tbtc]

If you accept that a train needs two members of staff on board, does it really matter to passengers which one

• Opens the doors
• Closes the doors
• Has overall responsibility for safety

See, to me it doesn't affect my journey which one of the two has these roles as long as someone does them. Nobody has convinced me why it has to be one rather than the other.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes but you couldn't have the sectors owning the infrastructure unless the accounting was clearly separate. It would be more logical to keep the regions responsible for infrastructure with the sectors just operating the trains.

Yes, but as many of our friends in Europe have shown, you can account for track and train seperately without splitting up the whole edifice. The sectors allowed BR to cater for some reasonably distinct parts of the business. There never was any need to split the whole thing up into lots and lots of different companies. That was pure ideology.

 

[Zoe]

Exactly, it's not important who opens and closes the doors as long as it's done safely. You could even have a member of platform staff open and close the doors and give a start signal to the driver. This doesn't prevent you from having a second member of staff on the train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The sectors allowed BR to cater for some reasonably distinct parts of the business.

That's why I'd say if you want to have it based on sectors then leave the sectors to run the trains on infrastructure provided by the BR regions.

 

[BestWestern]

If you accept that a train needs two members of staff on board, does it really matter to passengers which one

• Opens the doors
• Closes the doors
  [*]Has overall responsibility for safety

See, to me it doesn't affect my journey which one of the two has these roles as long as someone does them. Nobody has convinced me why it has to be one rather than the other.

In terms of overall safety, it isn't 'one rather than the other'; it is both. The Guard can carry out the required acts to protect a train and prevent a much more serious accident, in exactly the same way that a Driver can. If an incident occurs and the Driver is fine, the Guard can either assist him with the protection or deal with the passengers. But crucially, if the Driver is hurt, dead, in shock or whatever, and is unable to climb down and lay track circuit clips and detonators, contact the signaller and arrange help; then the Guard can do this instead.

 

[yorksrob]

That's why I'd say if you want to have it based on sectors then leave the sectors to run the trains on infrastructure provided by the BR regions.

Yeah, I'd agree with that (unless someone comes up with a reason otherwise), provided of course that the disparate bits are ultimately owned by one company which can:

1) Decide the main spending priorities
2) Arbitrate any disagreements between the different parts of the railway
3) Shuffle the money around as necessary at the end of the year
4) Provide a unified and coherent point of negotiation with the Government.

 

[BestWestern]

Exactly, it's not important who opens and closes the doors as long as it's done safely. You could even have a member of platform staff open and close the doors and give a start signal to the driver. This doesn't prevent you from having a second member of staff on the train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's why I'd say if you want to have it based on sectors then leave the sectors to run the trains on infrastructure provided by the BR regions.

That really isn't workable; but adds another strand to the discussion I suppose if nothing else. The advantage of a Guard operating doors is well established, in that they are able to step onto a platform and check that the train is safely positioned and that there is actually a length of platform in front of each of the passenger doors. I've had Drivers pull up short, it happens sometimes. The risk with DOO is that a Driver who doesn't realise can then release the doors, with the potential for somebody to fall. This might not be a big deal in DOO areas where the trains are generally of the same formation, but in many parts (FGW, Northern, etc) a service can be formed of totally different formations from one day to the next, and this is where the problems can creep in.

 

[Zoe]

1) Decide the main spending priorities
2) Arbitrate any disagreements between the different parts of the railway
3) Shuffle the money around as necessary at the end of the year
4) Provide a unified and coherent point of negotiation with the Government.

Remember though that even with the sectors there were failures but a nearby locomotive couldn't be used as it was owned by a different sector. You would not have that with the regions but then today the regions would need to have infrastructure and operations separate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That really isn't workable;

All you would need would be to have a button on the platform that a member of staff would press. This would send a signal to the train and close the doors automatically. Another button could then be pressed that would signal to the driver to start.

 

[BestWestern]

Remember though that even with the sectors there were failures but a nearby locomotive couldn't be used as it was owned by a different sector. You would not have that with the regions but then today the regions would need to have infrastructure and operations separate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All you would need would be to have a button on the platform that a member of staff would press. This would send a signal to the train and close the doors automatically. Another button could then be pressed that would signal to the driver to start.

It really isn't that simple! You would need to train the relevant people on the traction (rolling stock), you can't simply say 'push a button'. If there is a problem whilst they are operating the doors who would deal with it? You would also very probably need to give them further Rulebook training in certain elements of train working, and they'd then almost certainly want paying more. Having pressed the 'Go' button and started the train moving, how would they then secure the controls so that the button isn't permanently live and therfore accessible to those who shouldn't be touching it?!

You can't have dispatchers being Guards at the same time, it undermines both roles. You'd also end up with dual sets of door operating controls, inside and outside, to cater for both staffed and ustaffed stations, which is wasteful. Put simply, the only people who touch the train are the Traincrew, there are good reasons for this.

 

[notadriver]

On many trains the driver releases the doors - these trains aren't unsafe compared with trains where the guard does both opening and closing the doors statistically are they?

Also DOO trains are quicker than guard operated trains?

Salary apart - what is wrong with keeping a second person on the train who does everything a guard does except the doors?

 

[yorksrob]

Remember though that even with the sectors there were failures but a nearby locomotive couldn't be used as it was owned by a different sector. You would not have that with the regions but then today the regions would need to have infrastructure and operations separate.

Yes, with regard to the sectors that is a situation which would need to be reformed (although I dare say that it would be a lot easier to overcome with a unified management than trying to get the current situation to work). With regard to the regions, unfortunately they didn't really work in the past. The point is having a network big enough to allow for the joint management and cross subsidy but with the sectors developing their own routes for their passengers needs.

 

[BestWestern]

On many trains the driver releases the doors - these trains aren't unsafe compared with trains where the guard does both opening and closing the doors statistically are they?

Also DOO trains are quicker than guard operated trains?

Salary apart - what is wrong with keeping a second person on the train who does everything a guard does except the doors?

No, probably not, but then there are far less of them to 'statistically' compare. Quicker does not mean safer, since the time is saved by a reduction in safety procedures. I was merely pointing out the arguments which do exist in favour.

The safety culture on the railway has been progressively toughened over the years, with a view to being proactive and preventing incidents happening rather then just responding to them post-event. This culture is now in the process of being slackened considerably in order to fit the cost-cutting aims of the current climate. Some will find this a concern, others wont. An interesting thought; I've always wondered at the huge expense of mandatory OTMR, since it doesn't actually intervene to prevent an incident, it merely provides retrospective evidence. Under the current climate, if the scheme was being proposed now it would probably be axed. Some may think agree with that, some wouldn't. It provides a good benchmark for what was probably the peak of a 'failsafe' culture on our network; we now need to prepare for an increase in human error blunders as things slowly slide.

 

[Zoe]

With regard to the regions, unfortunately they didn't really work in the past.

Why do you think they didn't work?

 

[yorksrob]

Why do you think they didn't work?

Well, they may have worked in a way, but not as well as Inter City and NSE. Inter City was a well established brand if you needed to get across the country, wherever in the country you were. NSE was well known and publicised for anyone travelling in the South East to or around London. Even RR had potential.

The regions wouldn't be able to specialise in the same way, trying to cover branch lines and inter-city routes.

 

[tbtc]

In terms of overall safety, it isn't 'one rather than the other'; it is both. The Guard can carry out the required acts to protect a train and prevent a much more serious accident, in exactly the same way that a Driver can. If an incident occurs and the Driver is fine, the Guard can either assist him with the protection or deal with the passengers. But crucially, if the Driver is hurt, dead, in shock or whatever, and is unable to climb down and lay track circuit clips and detonators, contact the signaller and arrange help; then the Guard can do this instead.

I get that a Guard is able to help if something happens to the driver (although a second member of staff on board should be able to do some of that), but

...how often do drivers end up dead/ in severe shock?

...how often would a situation occur where a non-Guard (i.e. second member of staff on a train, not trained to the degree that a Guard is, not responsible for opening/ closing doors) wasn't able to help?

...if we need a second fully trained professional on trains (fully trained to assume overall responsibility) in case something happens to the Driver then what if something happens to both of them? Statistically unlikely, but then its statistically unlikely that a driver dies during a train service.

I see the need for a second member of staff on most services (certainly on all services over a certain length), but the case for training that second person to be able to be fully responsible for safety/ operate doors etc seems to be based on a lot of "what if" scenarios

 

[66526]

Ladbroke Grove, Great Heck, Ufton Nervet, Lambrigg. These are only the high profile ones in recent years that I've thought of from the top of my head where the driver was incapacitated in some way (either dead or very seriously injured).

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Ladbroke Grove, Great Heck, Ufton Nervet, Lambrigg. These are only the high profile ones in recent years that I've thought of from the top of my head where the driver was incapacitated in some way (either dead or very seriously injured).

And then there are many other cases where the driver has been too shocked to act, and the guard has dealt.

 

[313103]

And then there are many other cases where the driver has been too shocked to act, and the guard has dealt.

The point i am making is although the incidents mentioned have resulted in the driver being too seriously hurt or even have died, there was on one wayor another at least one member of staff avaliable to help.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I hope that Merseyrail extends to DOO.

You may just get your wish buddy, a certain Staff Association has agreed with merseyrail for DOO-P for its driver members. So i suggest you now write a letter to Arkwright Road thanking them.

As an aside i am so glad to see that you will still be in a job whilst a couple of hundred on merseyrail will join the growing ranks of the unemployed. God i hate people who are so self righteous.