RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[Bletchleyite]

The question really isn't whether we can replace railway staff, it's whether we should. I don't think we should. A computer can try, but you never really get the personal touch.

To me the DLR model is much more likely long-term - which means DOO is rather a blip, guard-only operation is much more likely on less crowded[1] metro systems in the future. After all, the personal touch can be delivered better by someone who is not in the cab.

[1] The ATO LU lines could be guard-only operation, but the decision was taken to keep the crew at the front.

 

[HH]

To me the DLR model is much more likely long-term - which means DOO is rather a blip, guard-only operation is much more likely on less crowded[1] metro systems in the future. After all, the personal touch can be delivered better by someone who is not in the cab.

Have you travelled on the DLR?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you travelled on the DLR?

Yes, many times. What point are you wanting to make?

 

[HH]

Yes, many times. What point are you wanting to make?

How often do you see the guard giving customer service? Let alone, perish the thought, actually checking tickets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How often do you see the guard giving customer service? Let alone, perish the thought, actually checking tickets.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.

But Merseyrail is not the DLR and the culture isn't like London

 

[HH]

Agreed that lots of DLRs problems are of their own making and wouldn't have to be repeated elsewhere.

 

[M28361M]

The planned strike timetable is now available at http://www.merseyrail.org/strike-action/strike-timetables.aspx - 30 minute frequency on all lines, Hooton-Ellesmere Port is a self-contained shuttle. Services running only between approx 0700-1900.

 

[trainophile]

So half hourly 6-coach trains instead of quarter hourly 3-coach ones. We will hardly notice the difference then . It's just a Sunday service by the look of it.

 

[Robertj21a]

So half hourly 6-coach trains instead of quarter hourly 3-coach ones. We will hardly notice the difference then . It's just a Sunday service by the look of it.

Seems eminently sensible. Perhaps it should become permanent !

[joking]

:roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's perfect clockface, which they should certainly do more widely having stepped slightly away from this.

 

[WatcherZero]

Martin Zee trial has started, prosecution alleging and providing footage that shows that he performed a check, saw the two pensioners hurrying towards the train and held off closing the doors however he then closed them without repeating the check causing the injury to the second pensioner who bounced off the doors and rolled under the train.

Hes facing two years for endangering passenger safety.

 

[trainophile]

Northern out as well on the same day. Running about 40% of normal service, but some routes not operating at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Martin Zee trial has started, prosecution alleging and providing footage that shows that he performed a check, saw the two pensioners hurrying towards the train and held off closing the doors however he then closed them without repeating the check causing the injury to the second pensioner who bounced off the doors and rolled under the train.

Hes facing two years for endangering passenger safety.

Interesting - that (the idea that he allegedly closed the doors in the second passenger's face after they were left open, possibly reopened, for another runner in front) is something that has not been mentioned before. It doesn't seem to have, if that is the case, the kind of implications some suggested.

It's still rather an affront to the principle that if you hear the hustle alarm you should not attempt to board, though.

Furthermore it has no relevance to DOO because a driver could have done (or not done) the self same thing.

 

[AntoniC]

Here is a link to the article

Merseyrail guard on trial after 89-year-old fell off platform at Hamilton Square
Martin Zee faces up two years in prison if found guilty of endangering passengers

A train guard went on trial today accused of endangering passenger safety after an 89-year-old woman fell between a platform and a train.

In July 2015 Edna Atherton suffered four broken ribs after losing her balance while trying to board the train as the doors were closing at Hamilton Square Station - falling between the carriage and the platform edge.

Merseyrail worker Martin Zee, 33, has pleaded not guilty to a charge of endangering railway passengers by wilful omission or neglect.

Rebecca Smith, prosecuting, showed the jury CCTV footage of the fall - which depicted a train pulling into Hamilton Square station from Liverpool.

In the video, Zee of Coronation Road, Runcorn, can be seen checking the length of the train before moving to close the doors. However he then appeared to allow the doors to stay open so that two women arriving late to the platform could board the train.

The footage showed one woman boarding the train, but then a second woman - Edna Atherton - falling from the train’s step before rolling between the carriage and the platform where other passengers rushed to help her.

The prosecution allege that after deciding to keep the doors open, Zee failed to complete the rest of the necessary checks required - thereby endangering the safety of Edna and other passengers.

Neil Fitzgibbon, defending, argued that Zee had paid due care and attention - and his actions to hold the doors were a “clear case of customer care”.

He also claimed that the curved track, combined with the angle of the train and the size of the gap between the train and the platform, contributed to Edna Atherton’s fall and subsequent injuries.

The court heard from witness Ronald Brown, who was on the train at the time Edna fell.

He described how he heard one woman on the train shout “she’s down, she’s down” as he and other passengers ran to the stricken passenger’s aid.

Source : Liverpool Echo : http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-guard-trial-after-89-12707066

 

[Bletchleyite]

So the allegation is that he did not follow procedure, yet Merseyrail say he did. That's bizarre.

 

[Onedirection]

Two points from inside information :

As far as the Martin Zee case is concerned which not much can be mentioned as case is ongoing, however , the jury will be asked once all evidence has been given- ' do you believe BEYOND reasonable doubt that the defendant INTENTIONALLY caused harm '. If any doubt is raised or you cannot give a clear answer here then he has to be aquitted.


In regards to the industrial action looming, this is still subject to change and possible more of a reduction to the Sunday service that is possibly being suggested as it still depends on how many drivers will book on that day which senior management are worried about as they have no control in knowing how this will play on the day. It has been suggested by Merseyrail to check website on the day to know the true timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two points from inside information :

As far as the Martin Zee case is concerned which not much can be mentioned as case is ongoing, however , the jury will be asked once all evidence has been given- ' do you believe BEYOND reasonable doubt that the defendant INTENTIONALLY caused harm '. If any doubt is raised or you cannot give a clear answer here then he has to be aquitted.

No, it won't. The case is about alleged negligence, not wilful harm.

 

[Tetchytyke]

do you believe BEYOND reasonable doubt that the defendant INTENTIONALLY caused harm '. If any doubt is raised or you cannot give a clear answer here then he has to be aquitted. .

That might be what the defence claim, we'll just have to wait and see, but one can be found guilty of this offence due to negligence.

So the allegation is that he did not follow procedure, yet Merseyrail say he did. That's bizarre.

I did wonder what the CPS were going to say. I can't say I'm surprised it was that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I did wonder what the CPS were going to say. I can't say I'm surprised it was that.

So the question for the Court is did he follow procedure or not, essentially. Procedure on all TOCs is that if the dispatch procedure is interrupted, it must be restarted from the beginning, is it not? Though common practice on Merseyrail is not that - far more typically the doors are reopened for a runner very briefly then immediately closed once the runner has boarded.

But then that would suggest the real case is against Merseyrail for not properly enforcing procedure, no? Did Merseyrail support him because they were concerned of the implications on their own processes[1], or on delay/passenger friendliness if they had to switch away from what has been practice for 30 years or more, namely pressing close, pressing open then close again in close succession to allow a quick last minute runner on?

Though that practice only works because the doors are fully guard controlled (you also see it on LU occasionally). If the FLIRTs move to the more usual system of passenger control, that "close, reopen briefly, close" would be redundant, as by the time you re-released the passenger would cause too much delay by faffing with the open button.

[1] As its anniversary was this week, I'm reminded of the Herald of Free Enterprise - a disaster that while it was caused on the face of it by one man's negligence, it was in fact an utterly rotten corporate structure and lack of safety culture that was the real root cause. I wouldn't suggest for a minute that was true of Merseyrail, but it could be that the real legal issue, if one exists, is procedural.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thinking on, there are other factors to consider.

More recent stock uses the same "fast bleep" hustle alarms to indicate closure for departure, and closure to keep the aircon in where if you put your hand in the door it'll reopen.

Is this a dangerous situation? Would it be better to have a different tone for the two situations - perhaps the more vicious sounding long bleeps used on DB? Should the coloured surround show amber for "close but not lock" and red for "close and lock for departure"? Should guards on the present stock be issued with and start using whistles, perhaps? Or external PA speakers on the FLIRTs to allow the driver to give a quick "stand clear please" like the typical German "Zurueckbleiben, bitte"? Should Merseyrail install PEDs with the FLIRTs? (I'm surprised this is not proposed)

 

[Onedirection]

You clearly no nothing about the case!

 

[Bletchleyite]

You clearly no nothing about the case!

I know what the newspaper article above states.

If you know more, and are not legally or contractually barred from doing so, perhaps you could share more information rather than making a pointless statement like the above?

Of course court cases are a matter of public record, so we should find out the full detail soon enough on its conclusion.

Is there a public RAIB report on the incident, or was it kept internal pending conclusion of the case?

 

[AlterEgo]

Two points from inside information :

As far as the Martin Zee case is concerned which not much can be mentioned as case is ongoing, however , the jury will be asked once all evidence has been given- ' do you believe BEYOND reasonable doubt that the defendant INTENTIONALLY caused harm '.

Completely incorrect.

This is a negligence case - the charge is one of "endangering railway passengers by wilful omission or neglect".

No intent to cause harm is necessary, and nobody, not even the prosecution is suggesting he intended harm.

The legal test is whether, by his neglect or wilful omission, he caused the harm that resulted.

 

[AlterEgo]

You clearly no nothing about the case!

Here is the chapter and verse of the offence with which Zee is charged:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100

34 Doing or omitting anything to endanger passengers by railway.

Whosoever, by any unlawful act, or by any wilful omission or neglect, shall endanger or cause to be endangered the safety of any person conveyed or being in or upon a railway, or shall aid or assist therein, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.

 

[Onedirection]

Completely incorrect.

This is a negligence case - the charge is one of "endangering railway passengers by wilful omission or neglect".

No intent to cause harm is necessary, and nobody, not even the prosecution is suggesting he intended harm.

The legal test is whether, by his neglect or wilful omission, he caused the harm that resulted.

Again. Totally missing the point !!!
The jury will need to be satisfied BEYOND reasonable doubt of the above you mention! So far, from the reports provided and conducted by the regulatory board , it's puts the prosecution in a difficult position.
ANY doubt of any kind will see the defendant aquitted!

 

[HH]

Again. Totally missing the point !!!
The jury will need to be satisfied BEYOND reasonable doubt of the above you mention! So far, from the reports provided and conducted by the regulatory board , it's puts the prosecution in a difficult position.
ANY doubt of any kind will see the defendant aquitted! [sic]

This is true of any trial by jury. Amazing then, according to your logic, that anyone ever gets convicted.

Perhaps you should ponder on that word reasonable...

 

[AlterEgo]

Again. Totally missing the point !!!
The jury will need to be satisfied BEYOND reasonable doubt of the above you mention! So far, from the reports provided and conducted by the regulatory board , it's puts the prosecution in a difficult position.
ANY doubt of any kind will see the defendant aquitted!

No, it does not miss the point.

I was only seeking to directly correct your incorrect and misleading assertion that the jury were to be asked:

do you believe BEYOND reasonable doubt that the defendant INTENTIONALLY caused harm '

(your emphasis!)

I repeat - that is incorrect.

The jury will be asked to consider whether, beyond reasonable doubt (not beyond "any doubt", as you wrongly claim), the defendant made a wilful omission or was neglectful, which caused harm to the passenger - which is completely different to asking whether the defendant intended to harm the passenger.

Is the unpublished and unseen RAIB report being used as evidence? I would be surprised if so, because even when McGee was up for manslaughter I don't think the RAIB report was used as evidence in that case.

 

[Onedirection]

No, it does not miss the point.

I was only seeking to directly correct your incorrect and misleading assertion that the jury were to be asked:

(your emphasis!)

I repeat - that is incorrect.

The jury will be asked to consider whether, beyond reasonable doubt (not beyond "any doubt", as you wrongly claim), the defendant made a wilful omission or was neglectful, which caused harm to the passenger - which is completely different to asking whether the defendant intended to harm the passenger.

Is the unpublished and unseen RAIB report being used as evidence? I would be surprised if so, because even when McGee was up for manslaughter I don't think the RAIB report was used as evidence in that case.

Again, totally missing the point!

Let's just agree to disagree as your going round in circles . End of conversation

 

[Tetchytyke]

Again, totally missing the point!

No it isn't.

Zee doesn't have to have deliberately or intentionally wiped the old lady into the four foot to be guilty of the offence. He merely has to have negligently wiped the old lady into the four foot to be guilty of the offence.

Whether he is guilty is, of course, a matter for the 12 honest and true members of the jury to decide.

 

[Onedirection]

No it isn't.

Zee doesn't have to have deliberately or intentionally wiped the old lady into the four foot to be guilty of the offence. He merely has to have negligently wiped the old lady into the four foot to be guilty of the offence.

Whether he is guilty is, of course, a matter for the 12 honest and true members of the jury to decide.

Hallelieua. Your last sentence is exactly the point! That's exactly what it comes down too . .