RMT concern over intercity express project

[Fincra5]

Weren't the RMT awful for bringing it up?

I'm just wondering why it takes a highly trained member of staff, whatever the job title, to work out whether a train door is next to a platform before it opens.

You must be trolling... surely.

 

[313103]

Right I stand by comment why should I as a Taxpayer pay for an inefficient railway?

It is not me making decisions about Railway safety but the HSE, although I suspect the Rail Unions would prefer to make all the decisions about rail safety.

I was made redundant last year when the company I work for decided to outsource IT, my job is now done remotely by people in the Czech Republic.

No I wasn't happy about it, buts that's frequently the reality in the real world, unlike the railways which appears to be the last bastion of union power.

And at the end of the day safety in all industries is usually a balance between Risk and Cost, and sometimes political expediency

Actually the unions are not as powerful as you may think, it still didn't stop London Overground getting rid of 128 Guards saving the taxpayer exactly nothing! But hay oh we are where we are.

I also live in the real world as well, I could not afford to live in London once I was made redundant, so I had to move to where work is and that my dear friend was 250 miles from where I have lived for the past 50 years. If not I would be costing you as a taxpayer a lot more in handouts to keep me alive and in living in London.

If you think the railway world isn't in the real world you are sadly deluded, the Mcnulty report is in the process of making thousands of people redundant, London Underground is in the process of making hundreds of people redundant. Where are these people going to find work?

 

[PermitToTravel]

It is not the responsibility of employers to keep people in work.

Some posts about redundancy in this thread, however, have been completely out of order.

 

[313103]

It is not the responsibility of employers to keep people in work.

Some posts about redundancy in this thread, however, have been completely out of order.

As a person who has gone through redundancy I think I am quite verse on saying what it brings.

Explain how comments on redundancy are out of order?

Also perhaps if employers don't have people in work, how does anything get done. Perhaps we could all live in a utopia where no one has to work, I would certainly enjoy that rather then having to work for a living.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Some posts on redundancy were completely out of order. I didn't say that any of yours were

If employers do not need something done then they do not need to hire someone to do it.

There is a parallel discussion in the tube strikes thread about redundancy.

 

[sd0733]

If any out of the ordinary events take place on board services then who is to deal with it without causing major delays and leaving passengers in the dark.
For example a train I worked a few weeks ago had 2 ambulances after 1 elderley lady had a fall and badly cut her face and another lady had chest pains etc. I sorted assistance in advance and ambulances were waiting and we lost 6 mins with both incidents combined. On a DOO service either the driver would have to stop if alerted or sort it at the station causing delay and obviously more importantly delaying treatment as emergency services could only be alerted when at stations.
Also, today my train was stopped to be examined as it was thought we caused some damage further up the line, the driver was on the phone to the signaller/walking round the unit for the whole 20 minutes and so without a guard the passengers would be left in the dark for the whole time and may then get angry and cause further issues.
Do these incidents occur everyday- no they don't but passengers would soon be complaining if trains were held and no explanations were ever given or anyone to ask about connections etc.
At the end of the day, if you look deeply at almost any job you could argue that its pointless waste of money if you wanted to argue it. Any customer service jobs, cleaners, buffet/trolley staff, caterers, receptionists, aircraft cabin crew, chefs etc- you could put vending machines in and talk to a computer and save money there too but surely there has to be a line somewhere between pure costs of every persons job and the benefits the role brings to the people paying for it and also their safety/security (and as others say the saving won't be passed to passengers anyway) as otherwise everything in life will end up a faceless, miserable task and nobody will be in any job and then the country will end up paying all the savings (and probably more) in benefit payments.
Maybe spemding a day with a guard and seeing what actually takes place in a day and what we have to deal with and put up with would be an eye-opener to some people and that it certainly isn't spending a day in the back cab and opening the doors every once in a while.

 

[kieron]

On the Underground a system called Correct Side Door Enable is used to allow trains to automatically determine whether or not they are alongside a platform.

Thanks. I can see how this would be more expensive (with the isolated stations) and less useful (with staff generally enabling door buttons rather than opening doors) on the main rail network.

 

[Skimble19]

Yes, refer to the business plans.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What is your evidence to the contrary?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It would be the same effect as with the airline industry, telecoms,IT etc.

The wage bill is a substantial part of the operational costs, reducing the remuneration costs by eliminating repetitive positions eliminates those costs. At the moment only small numbers are being released so the impact is marginal and over shadowed by other cost increases but we are getting close were significant savings can be made.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


TfL is making cuts because of the reduction in the grant (I think the Central Government grant) an in order to preserve services, and minimize impact on investment. The main beneficiary in this case is the tax payer that is subsidizing the railways for others to use. It may be painful, but we should expect more cuts to operational an capital budgets as the next phase of the financial crisis hits.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That just sounds like political dogma.

So essentially you're a troll that has no evidence for your original points.. Unless you can provide some then your point really does look very pathetic.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

For example a train I worked a few weeks ago had 2 ambulances after 1 elderley lady had a fall and badly cut her face and another lady had chest pains etc. I sorted assistance in advance and ambulances were waiting and we lost 6 mins with both incidents combined. On a DOO service either the driver would have to stop if alerted or sort it at the station causing delay and obviously more importantly delaying treatment as emergency services could only be alerted when at stations.

Wouldn't the driver once alerted call on the radio phone and get someone to arrange for an ambulance to meet the train an the next suitable station (irrespective of whether the train is due to stop there)?

 

[BestWestern]

Is it I seem to recall an HST an coming into Doncaster once but was held at the midplatform signal, the doors were released despite the train not being fully on the platform, the signal then changed and the driver unaware that the doors were open started to move down the platform at which point a member of the platform staff rushed over to the cab to get the driver to stop.

Oh and talking to friend the other day he was telling about his railway driver friend who apparently a few weeks ago managed to set off without his guard, after he thought he herd the buzzers for departure, obviously Im not going to say what TOC he works for or where it happened.

If DOO can be proved to be substancially unsafe compared to having a guard and cannot be improved by better views of the platform, icreasing use of ATO on the lines that are suitable for it etc then you might have a point

I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate here, you've quoted one operational error by a guard and two by drivers? Yep, everybody cocks up sometimes, well done. Hence the safer we can make it the better. Incidentally, the first rule of driving an HST is that if you've come to a stand in a platform you don't move an inch until the Guard dispacthes, so in the case you mention both the crew would have been in for tea and no biscuits.

 

[A-driver]

Wouldn't the driver once alerted call on the radio phone and get someone to arrange for an ambulance to meet the train an the next suitable station (irrespective of whether the train is due to stop there)?

Depends. Most trains don't have the ability for passengers to talk to the driver. Pull the passcom and the brakes lock on. The driver then needs to battle through a possibly mobbed 12 car train (possibly getting a line block to get between units if a train with no gangway) to reset the alarm and find info on the incident. This could take realistically 15mins for the driver, from moment cord is pulled until they find out someone is having a heart attack, to then have to reset the alarm, get back to the cab and speak to the signaller, possibly adding another 10 mins. So 25mins before the train moves again in order to reach a station and await an ambulance...

 

[Mark62]

Sorry if I upset you, but if less salaries translate to cheaper fares then I'm all for it

Surely you mean smaller profits and then less salaries to keep fares down. Paying workers less is not exactly the best way to get the best out of your workforce.
The whole perception of workers pay is very distorted here in the UK. A top footballer will get paid the same amount for just a few hours kicking air as a train driver gets paid in a year. Someone on disability benefit will get paid in a week what a footballer gets paid in less then a minute. The footballer is seen as a hero, the train drivers wanting more pay are seen as money grabbers and the disabled are seen as scroungers.
Seems the British can't add up anymore or see further than the hand in front of their face. Are we becoming a country of lemmings?

 

[Carlisle]

Surely you mean smaller profits and then less salaries to keep fares down. Paying workers less is not exactly the best way to get the best out of your workforce.
The whole perception of workers pay is very distorted here in the UK. A top footballer will get paid the same amount for just a few hours kicking air as a train driver gets paid in a year. Someone on disability benefit will get paid in a week what a footballer gets paid in less then a minute. The footballer is seen as a hero, the train drivers wanting more pay are seen as money grabbers and the disabled are seen as scroungers.
Seems the British can't add up anymore or see further than the hand in front of their face. Are we becoming a country of lemmings?

Sadly it's simply a case of supply and demand , you can usually teach most willing people of reasonable intelligence and correct medical criteria to eventually be good railway employees or many other professions within the alotted training time (ok some folk may take slightly longer to master certain skills) but love or hate them individuals with the sporting talent of Lionel Messi come once in a blue moon

 

[ModernRailways]

Depends. Most trains don't have the ability for passengers to talk to the driver. Pull the passcom and the brakes lock on. The driver then needs to battle through a possibly mobbed 12 car train (possibly getting a line block to get between units if a train with no gangway) to reset the alarm and find info on the incident. This could take realistically 15mins for the driver, from moment cord is pulled until they find out someone is having a heart attack, to then have to reset the alarm, get back to the cab and speak to the signaller, possibly adding another 10 mins. So 25mins before the train moves again in order to reach a station and await an ambulance...

So essentially trains that are/could become DOO should have some way to speak to the driver without the driver needing to stop the train, walk through the train to find what has happened?



On a side note, what happens if something happens to the driver of the train? Nobody can get to them to give some medical attention, whereas a guard would be able to open the cab door, help out the driver, get medical assistance (if anyone can help). Something like this happened with TPE and it was on the BBC Air Ambulance program.

 

[sd0733]

So essentially trains that are/could become DOO should have some way to speak to the driver without the driver needing to stop the train, walk through the train to find what has happened

But even then it wouid still delay the whole situation, a driver isn't realistically going to be able to fully concentrate on driving the train whilst talking to passengers about a situation such as this and then calling the ambulance at the same time. So really its still going to wait to be done in a station or have to stop anyway to make the call which could potentially be the difference between life and death for the ill person in those situations.

There's far more complications to lots of these scenarios than just passing everything onto the driver whose responsibilty is driving the train not having to worry about what's happening behind them.

 

[A-driver]

There was an incident years ago in a pair of DOO 455s approaching London bridge in the morning peak. A passcom pulled at the back unit. Brakes came on. Driver couldn't speak to who had pulled it but they needed down south London blocked plus the train was blocking the up main. Took 20mins to authorise the block with platform space so limited at London bridge. Then driver had to walk down, investigate and reset. Train moved again after over 30mins stationary in the morning peak. Luckily it was a false alarm but if anyone was actually dying then it wouldn't have helped!

 

[Carlisle]

I'm surprised considering the safety/time access issues for drivers to the whole train raised here that southern have removed the gangway doors from the cabs of its 455s and Scotrail with its 318s both of which operate mostly DOO services

 

[A-driver]

I'm surprised considering the safety/time access issues for drivers to the whole train raised here that southern have removed the gangway doors from the cabs of its 455s and Scotrail with its 318s both of which operate mostly DOO services

Gangway doors were taken away to install cab air conditioning. There is no requirement for DOO trains to have gangways and numerous trains don't but still run DOO-456/465/365/455/321/360(or what ever the great Eastern Siemens trains are), 319/313 (except for emergency walk throughs).

We regularly run 12 car 321/365 units so you can be 2 gangway- less trains away from any staff. The agreement was that all 12car trains would have RPIs at the back but that agreement wasn't honoured and it's very common to have 12 cars with only 1 member of staff sitting at the front. Infact if a 12 car 321 had a passcom pulled in the middle unit in the single bore slow road tunnels at barnet or wood green the driver would have great difficulty getting into the middle unit to re-set it.

That particular issue will be addressed if it ever happens...

 

[Carlisle]

Cheers for explaining that ,I did not realise FCC ran many 12 cars other than the 377s on the Thameslink route

 

[OxtedL]

I note from this article from 2013 in The Rail Engineer that as part of ASDO (Automatic Selective Door Opening or similar) on the Windsor Lines, track beacons were installed on approach to stations.

The relevant bit here is:

Every beacon is coded with a unique identifier for that platform using a 60-bit code made up of:
» Application code – 9 bits
» Station identifier (3 letter code) – 15 bits
» Platform number – 5 bits
» Platform length – 10 bits, covering from 0 to 1023 metres
» Correct side door enabling (left or right) – 2 bits
» Approach direction (Up or Down) – 2 bits
» Selective door system operative – 1 bit
» Check bit code – 16 bits.

This is about as close as you can get to the Underground's CSDE on the national network, and where installed is the sort of thing with future potential to prevent most short stop and wrong side release events.

Whilst there are many arguments about where having a guard is safer than just a driver, there are not insubstantial cost and operational benefits to DOO, and the industry is working - often quite quietly - on the sorts of technology that will make these safety points harder to argue in the future.

 

[O L Leigh]

So, we're going around in the same circles all over again. Is it necessary? I think we've already established the following facts.

1) Removal of guards will not mean a reduction in fares.

I would argue that it would actually make very little difference to the level of subsidy required by the industry because the McNulty report makes the assumption that revenue would remain constant. Where a guard's duties also include revenue protection, their removal would almost certainly result in an increase in fare evasion and, therefore, a reduction in income. RPIs and guards who have revenue duties pay for themselves by the money that they take.

2) The risk of a safety of the line (SOL) incident is higher with DOO.

Naturally that does not mean that routes and services with guards will be 100% safe and never see an SOL incident, but having a second pair of eyes dramatically reduce this. As with other railstaff posting in this thread so far, I am aware of many SOL incidents on the DOO routes I used to work over that are not replicated on the routes I now drive over with the back-up of a guard.

Interestingly where these SOL incidents are replicated it is where the driver is in control of the doors and where there may be some uncertainty about whether or not the entire train is correctly platformed before releasing the doors.

3) Having a second member of staff on the train makes it much easier to deal with an on-train emergency.

This really shouldn't need to be expanded upon.

Therefore, can we please finally put this one to rest. We get this same discussion over and over and nothing new comes of it and, frankly, it's getting very boring indeed. Unfortunately those who argue in favour of DOO do not appear to be sufficiently well-informed. Sorry if that causes offence as none is intended but, for those who do understand the situation better, that is how it appears.

Personally it doesn't surprise me that IEP is being built with door controls in the cab. It's a multiple unit after all. However, that does not automatically mean that these trains will be used for DOO. Turbostars have door controls on the drivers desks. On Chiltern the doors are under the control of the drivers, even when north of Banbury, while on XC at least the driver has nothing to do with the doors whatsoever. Perhaps the RMT is jumping the gun a little, but the problem is still one that is worth flagging up, and so I'm not critical of them.

O L Leigh

 

[A-driver]

I note from this article from 2013 in The Rail Engineer that as part of ASDO (Automatic Selective Door Opening or similar) on the Windsor Lines, track beacons were installed on approach to stations.



The relevant bit here is:





This is about as close as you can get to the Underground's CSDE on the national network, and where installed is the sort of thing with future potential to prevent most short stop and wrong side release events.



Whilst there are many arguments about where having a guard is safer than just a driver, there are not insubstantial cost and operational benefits to DOO, and the industry is working - often quite quietly - on the sorts of technology that will make these safety points harder to argue in the future.

I agree but the issue is that cost savings are not passed on and in terms of safety and customer satisfaction any kind of technology replacing humans isn't as good as it sounds. Take ticket machines. Great to save on paying staff to sit at a counter and great if you know what you want to buy and it's a simple ticket. If you have questions or need advice on tickets etc then they are useless.

 

[OxtedL]

I agree but the issue is that cost savings are not passed on and in terms of safety and customer satisfaction any kind of technology replacing humans isn't as good as it sounds. Take ticket machines. Great to save on paying staff to sit at a counter and great if you know what you want to buy and it's a simple ticket. If you have questions or need advice on tickets etc then they are useless.

Indeed. Same with such inventions as the self-checkout.

The theory remains that DOO potentially makes the whole operations cheaper, and if companies bidding on franchises find ways to reduce their costs, they can offer slicker bids. There will be many watching this round of franchising to see if it is competitive enough for DOO to emerge as a serious option - the big thing stopping it at the moment won't be any safety concerns, but rather a lack of political stomach for any negative publicity to go with it.

Negative publicity becomes less and less likely the easier you make it to simply switch from one mode to the other - see LOROL and the North and West London lines. 378s already had DOO cameras fully fitted.

Which brings us full circle to the first post of this thread - RMT are concerned about DOO on IEP not necessarily because they think there is any plan to eliminate guard's door duties currently, but because the presence of DOO cameras on trains makes it a whole lot easier to carry out the switch with minimal fuss in the future.

 

[Carlisle]

Indeed. Same with such inventions as the self-checkout.

The theory remains that DOO potentially makes the whole operations cheaper, and if companies bidding on franchises find ways to reduce their costs, they can offer slicker bids. There will be many watching this round of franchising to see if it is competitive enough for DOO to emerge as a serious option - the big thing stopping it at the moment won't be any safety concerns, but rather a lack of political stomach for any negative publicity to go with it.

Negative publicity becomes less and less likely the easier you make it to simply switch from one mode to the other - see LOROL and the North and West London lines. 378s already had DOO cameras fully fitted.

Which brings us full circle to the first post of this thread - RMT are concerned about DOO on IEP not necessarily because they think there is any plan to eliminate guard's door duties currently, but because the presence of DOO cameras on trains makes it a whole lot easier to carry out the switch with minimal fuss in the future.

All true but Southern's electrostars have all had DOO cameras installed from new but as far as I know they have not extended it anywhere and only operate it on the routes that had it before they took over

 

[OxtedL]

All true but Southern's electrostars have had DOO cameras installed from new but as far as I know they have not extended it anywhere and only operate it on the routes that had it before they took over

Yes.

I would like to suggest reasons for this - I suspect that their franchise agreement was set up in such a way that there has been no incentive for them to try and roll out any new DOO.

I think I am correct in saying that the Thameslink Programme is expected to (almost certainly) see an extension of DOO onto what are currently Southern only routes, at least in the peak.

One of the most closely watched things to come out of the imminent re-franchising announcement will be exactly how far this is taken.

 

[Carlisle]

Yes.

I would like to suggest reasons for this - I suspect that their franchise agreement was set up in such a way that there has been no incentive for them to try and roll out any new DOO.

I think I am correct in saying that the Thameslink Programme is expected to (almost certainly) see an extension of DOO onto what are currently Southern only routes, at least in the peak.

One of the most closely watched things to come out of the imminent re-franchising announcement will be exactly how far this is taken.

Yes we may or may not see much change ,but as others have pointed out on this forum in the past,DFT may only be very slightly lukewarm/uncertain on this whole Mc Nulty DOO idea ,if they were keen , then they would surely be specifying new electric services like Liverpool -Manchester were converted (probably retaining staff for customer service like SPT) when the 319 s moved up after re furbishmemt rather like NSE used to do with its total route modernisation

 

[Fincra5]

DOO on Thameslink is stated to be services through the "Thameslink Core" These services are the current ones through City Thameslink (etc), nothing into Victoria or London Bridge (Current Southern ones).
The services from Horsham or East Grinstead (proposed) - given the 700s have conductor panels, - i'd expect a Conductor to present until the Mainline DOO area. So Three Bridges or East Croydon.

 

[455driver]

Wouldn't the driver once alerted call on the radio phone and get someone to arrange for an ambulance to meet the train at the next suitable station (irrespective of whether the train is due to stop there)?

Yes but how is the driver alerted?

How long from the driver being alerted is the ambulance en route, a driver certainly wont call for an ambulance because somebody has pulled a CFA and asked for one!

The guard will be able to deal with the incident while the driver gets on with driving, once the ambulance is met the guard will be in a much better position to pass any relevant information onto the ambulance crew.

These are simple facts.

DOO is safe, crew working is safer!
Safety costs money, how much are you willing to spend!

 

[thedbdiboy]

One point that I'm not sure has been aired is that DOO can make a service more reliable, as crewed services can be cancelled if no guard is available. Given the way technology is developing I wonder if we will eventually get to a situation of trains with guards but no driver - the DLR works a bit like this with the 'train captain' arrangement

 

[sd0733]

On the flip side of the above post there are also issues which can be created by Doo, equipment could be faulty such as monitors, cameras, RA/CD indicators etc or mirrors could be vandalised. We quite often get e-mails where power cuts have caused loss of power leading to no lighting/ ticket issuing facilities therefore all the DOO equipment would also fail which causes at least a delay if not being unable to stop.
As a percentage I'd think the amount of trains cancelled/delayed by no guard is dwarfed by the amount caused by equipment/signal failures etc.

Also, I don't think its yet been mentioned but what happens to disabled passengers, yes one day level access and automatic ramps may eventually arrive but at the moment that's not possible. Today I've had 2 wheelchairs, 1 to a manned station but unfortunately nobody showed to pick them up so I did it myself, a driver wouldn't have known the wheelchair was there so would probably have gone with them still onboard and the other to an un-manned station, obviously this couldn't happen with no guard on-board.

These things could be remedied yes but it all costs money anyway and that money would take a fair chunk out of the savings of mass redundancies so damaging the purely economic case for change.