RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[muz379]

National Express and Megabus etc are OPO as well. If the NX driver is incapacitated halfway down the M1, are the passengers familiar with the road environment into which they will be stepping if there is a need to evacuate in an emergency?

I would suspect that the vast majority of people would be familiar with what a motorway is and how it works and that traffic is moving fast so getting yourself onto the grass verge beyond the hard shoulder would be the best idea .

 

[Voglitz]

I would suspect that the vast majority of people would be familiar with what a motorway is and how it works and that traffic is moving fast so getting yourself onto the grass verge beyond the hard shoulder would be the best idea .

But what if a coach, or bus, has crashed as a result of driver incapacity, and passengers are injured or disoriented? Should there be a safety trained second member of staff on the bus, for such an eventuality?

 

[6Gman]

I think others are suggesting that they be trained as First Responders, not heart surgeons. And as for the very rare occasions when they are required to take control of the situation then untrained passengers have landed aeroplanes.....[/QUOTE]

Really? I thought that was urban myth and Hollywood stuff?

 

[muz379]

But what if a coach, or bus, has crashed as a result of driver incapacity, and passengers are injured or disoriented? Should there be a safety trained second member of staff on the bus, for such an eventuality?

No

As I said chances are the vast majority of passengers are going to understand what a road is (a motorway is just a type of road) and know how to keep themselves safe in that environment even if they are disoriented . The vast majority of passengers would also know how to summon assistance for anyone on the bus injured in the accident .

Other traffic on that road operates on the principle of driving as fast as can be seen to be clear so should be able to stop seeing the accident . On a busy road like a motorway that means plenty of people with the knowledge on how to summon assistance and keep people safe will be there straight away .

What safety training would this second member of bus staff have that would give them knowledge that the vast majority of passengers on the bus would not already have ?

 

[6Gman]

Every day, far more people travel on buses than on trains, and these have been 99%+ OPO for years. So, if something incapacitates the bus driver, should there be a safety-trained conductor onboard each bus, to take control of the situation?

No, because the road environment is one with which we are all familiar. Other vehicles can react (near) instantly. Access and egress are straightforward.

 

[AlterEgo]

Honestly, the DOO stuff has been done to death. It would be great if we could talk about the dispute and how it might be resolved, rather than rehash, for the millionth time, analogies about planes and buses.

 

[InOban]

This discussion highlights the inconsistency in our attitude to different modes. A driver cannot use a route unless has spent hours learning it, and must continue to use it regularly. Same for each new class of train. A truck driver can take a vehicle which they have never driven before and drive anywhere.

And while I'm​ here, the major cause of plane accidents is pilot error. Except for landing in a nasty crosswind, they might well be safer without a pilot interfering with their automatic systems.

 

[Voglitz]

No, because the road environment is one with which we are all familiar. Other vehicles can react (near) instantly. Access and egress are straightforward.

If road vehicles 'can react (near) instantly', why do multi-vehicle pile-ups happen?

Access and egress are not straightforward, if the bus has crashed off the road down an embankment (for example).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hi,



May I ask a question please ?



Hands up, everyone who is in favour of removing cabin crew and co-pilot from a plane ???

FWIW I have flown on a small plane which was pilot only operated.

 

[muz379]

Honestly, the DOO stuff has been done to death. It would be great if we could talk about the dispute and how it might be resolved, rather than rehash, for the millionth time, analogies about planes and buses.

On Merseyrail I think that the dispute will centre on what ASLEF and its members want .

The plan is to almost instantly roll out a new fleet of trains which will make the guards role dispatching the train redundant meaning that RMT strikes wont stop wheels turning and ultimately wont hurt the company .


The elephant in the room at the moment for both Merseyrail and ASLEF IMO is the meaning behind large numbers of Merseyrail drivers refusing to cross RMT picket lines on Monday .

Is it as the RMT probably hopes indicative of drivers thoughts on operating doors which would place them at odds with current ASLEF leadership behaviour on southern in agreeing to extending drivers control of doors . So it will be interesting and certainly worth watching what happens with the final agreement on Southern and then if and how ASLEF leadership make any attempt to distinguish Merseyrail from Southern . What happens if ASLEF leadership recommend Merseyrail drivers accepting door control and Merseyrail drivers vote no remains to be seen and could mean interesting times for ASLEF .

Although in interests of fairness their unwillingness to cross picket lines could also just be proud union men from a proud city showing us what solidarity means and actually they might be willing to reach an agreement to do the doors . I am sure this is what merseyrail management are trying to spin it to the shareholders as

Also worth considering the outcome of the Martin Zee trial . If he is found guilty this would IMO make responsibility for door operations so toxic that ASLEF would have a stronger case for refusing to accept them should they wish to go this way .


I think financially up North there is far more ability for Drivers to go into long disputes over this at both Northern and Merseyrail , not forgetting that the cost of living up here means that a drivers salary buys you a lot more than it does down south and I am sure some southern drivers are feeling the pain from striking and withdrawal of RDW .

 

[danbarnstall]

Honestly, the DOO stuff has been done to death. It would be great if we could talk about the dispute and how it might be resolved, rather than rehash, for the millionth time, analogies about planes and buses.

Difficult if impossible given the budget cuts for Liverpool City Region and demands from RMT.

Reality is the local council is having another £90 million cut from its budget, they have to reduce costs. DOO is a useful way of shaving £8 million a year. Merseytravel are funding their trains (Taking out a massive loan) so I would guess part of the £8 million shaving will go towards paying off these. Out of interest does anyone know current leasing costs of 507/508s?

Staff coming in to Merseyrail now will be on fixed term contracts meaning no permanent staff will lose their job. To be fair to Merseyrail that is an assurance that goes much further than other TOCs are offering.

For us travellers in the area it's going to be a torrid few years. I don't see a resolution until it is forced through when the new trains arrive. Aslef reaction will be interesting after their drivers refused to cross picket lines.

 

[Voglitz]

As I said chances are the vast majority of passengers are going to understand what a road is (a motorway is just a type of road) and know how to keep themselves safe in that environment even if they are disoriented . The vast majority of passengers would also know how to summon assistance for anyone on the bus injured in the accident .

I daresay the vast majority of train passengers are going to understand what a railway is, and how to summon assistance for anyone on the train injured in an accident. By dialing 999, probably.

But this doesn't really answer the question as to why a safety trained second crewperson should be required on a train, but not on a bus.

Other traffic on that road operates on the principle of driving as fast as can be seen to be clear so should be able to stop seeing the accident .

In practice, roads don't always operate on the principle of driving as fast as can be seen to be clear. That's why there are pile-ups in fog, etc.

What safety training would this second member of bus staff have that would give them knowledge that the vast majority of passengers on the bus would not already have ?

I'm asking why trains 'need a second safety critical member of staff', but buses, trams, HGVs, and coaches don't.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think financially up North there is far more ability for Drivers to go into long disputes over this at both Northern and Merseyrail , not forgetting that the cost of living up here means that a drivers salary buys you a lot more than it does down south and I am sure some southern drivers are feeling the pain from striking and withdrawal of RDW .

What will be the situation then if the DfT still keep to a policy of financing any TOC losses in the time period that you feel may well occur?

 

[muz379]

I daresay the vast majority of train passengers are going to understand what a railway is, and how to summon assistance for anyone on the train injured in an accident. By dialing 999, probably.

But this doesn't really answer the question as to why a safety trained second crewperson should be required on a train, but not on a bus.

And as is discussed every time a bridge bash thread comes up , dialing 999 which puts you through to a generic region/force wide control room for the emergency service you ask for adds a delay in the time it takes information to reach the relevant people on the operational railway , ie the signaller , NR control and the toc control . Also what location information is a passenger going to be able to give .Between station X and station Y , great in close metro situations , on some of the more remote sections perhaps not so great .

Now if it is just a case of a driver or passenger is having a heart attack the few minute delay it takes to relay that information is only going to have the potential to adversely effect that one person .

If it is a situation whereby hundreds of passengers are spilling out onto a live railway that few minutes could make all the difference between trains being stopped and people getting killed .

Passengers might know what a railway is in basic terms , but do the vast majority of passengers know which of the three rails is carrying electricity , which direction and at what possible speed trains could approach from . how dangerous downed OHLE could still be .

Hence my argument for a guard . In that situation a guard has the knowledge to know how to stop trains in the most efficient way possible for the location concerned . And also to direct people the safest possible way to a position of safety . The guard also has the knowledge to let the people like control and the signaller know the precise location of the train so the signaller can arrange emergency service access and control can arrange onward transport for passengers .

In practice, roads don't always operate on the principle of driving as fast as can be seen to be clear. That's why there are pile-ups in fog, etc.

Perhaps not ,but then are we taking it as a given that people do not always drive as safely as they should .
Either way even in fog people are going to be travelling at a reduced speed which lessens the severity of accidents .

Either way you wont have the situation you have on the railway in which a train can come flying round a bend and even with a full brake application can take several hundred meters to stop . The highway code stopping distance from 70mph is just shy of 100m , and this is likely to be much less with modern vehicle standards .

I'm asking why trains 'need a second safety critical member of staff', but buses, trams, HGVs, and coaches don't.

[/QUOTE]
To put it simply train crew have additional knowledge about the particular environment in which they operate that is essential to keep people as safe as possible in an emergency . As I said a guard knows how to get trains stopped and summon assistance in the most efficient way ,also being able to direct people to a position of safety in the safest possible way . Whilst most of the time they can be utilised to dispatch trains using the safest method of dispatch and can provide customer service .

Much like the additional crew on a boat or plane . They have knowledge to assist in an emergency . But they also do other jobs unless that emergency occurs .

I mean I am sure if a boat started sinking the passengers on board could phone 999 and summon the coastguard to "some area in the Irish sea" . But I am sure you would prefer secondary members of crew who knew how to use the radio and navigation equipment to summon assistance to a more specific location in a more efficient way .

 

[InOban]

I thought that all modern mobiles have GPS so that the precise location of the caller can be determined​ by the emergency services. Certainly all trains should have GPS trackers just as buses and trucks almost always do. That's how the company knows where they are.

 

[Voglitz]

I mean I am sure if a boat started sinking the passengers on board could phone 999 and summon the coastguard to "some area in the Irish sea" . But I am sure you would prefer secondary members of crew who knew how to use the radio and navigation equipment to summon assistance to a more specific location in a more efficient way .

I can't see how there'd be much practical difference between the accuracy of geolocation of a train accident, compared to a coach accident.

In a train accident, it's entirely possible that both the guard and driver could be incapacitated. So presumably, you could argue for having a third crew member on board each train, to increase the likelihood of one being able to 'help passengers' after an accident.

 

[muz379]

I thought that all modern mobiles have GPS so that the precise location of the caller can be determined​ by the emergency services. Certainly all trains should have GPS trackers just as buses and trucks almost always do. That's how the company knows where they are.

You assume that everyone uses a modern mobile ,has their gps switched on , has gps signal and that it is accurate

Same with the trains , I know some units at my toc are fitted although I dont think the data is currently available to people in control or network rail it is used for timing data and delay monitoring .

And again you are assuming that an accident has not rendered it inoperable or you are in an area with no coverage like a tunnel or under 400 tonnes of cutting wall and top soil that has come down on top of you

 

[Voglitz]

This discussion highlights the inconsistency in our attitude to different modes. A driver cannot use a route unless has spent hours learning it, and must continue to use it regularly. Same for each new class of train. A truck driver can take a vehicle which they have never driven before and drive anywhere.

Indeed. The inconsistency, and illogicality, is enormous.

 

[muz379]

Indeed. The inconsistency, and illogicality, is enormous.

How so ,

The driver of a bus or HGV is qualified to drive on the road subject to the drive as fast as you can safely see to stop rule obeying all signs which by virtue of having a license they are expected to have a proper knowledge of . No specific route knowledge is needed to drive a bus(unless it is passenger route knowledge ) or HGV because as a licensed driver you should be able to obey all signs and road layouts . At 70mph it is going to take at most 100m to stop .

A train however is not driven according to line of sight . It is controlled by movement authority so it is necessary to know positions and arrangements for signalling . There are also local quirks to the rail network owing to its age and local instructions which must be known . At 70mph it is going to take a several hundred meters at least to stop .

Same with traction training , different classes of train have different handling characteristics . Drivers are also expected to know a lot more fault finding which is a large part of traction training .

Trucks are going to all meet a minimum set of standards .

 

[trainophile]

Top posts muz379.

I would add that relying on other passengers to take control in an emergency situation is probably a recipe for at best confusion, and at worst making things much worse by conflicting actions.

 

[Goldfish62]

If that's true (that guards walk through more often than not) that's a big shift - on Merseyrail in my childhood the guard never left the rear cab other than to change ends.

FWIW, LM presently looks like that. Many people think it is already DOO as a result, and there's unlikely to be significant resistance from passengers to a change there (though one is not presently proposed, and the 350s are not set up for it so it would require significant financial investment so seems unlikely absent a complete rolling stock replacement programme which itself seems unlikely given the age and condition of the 350s).

Funny you should say that about LM. Overheard at Clapham Junction recently regarding the Southern dispute: "What's the problem anyway? SWT doesn't have guards on most of its trains".

 

[kw12]

Which, if any, other countries have DOO?

Are there any examples from around the world of DOO trains where there have been fatalities or injuries that would/may have been avoided had a traditional guard been present?

Are there any examples from other countries of trains that used to be DOO but now have a traditional guard?

 

[InOban]

How so ,

The driver of a bus or HGV is qualified to drive on the road subject to the drive as fast as you can safely see to stop rule obeying all signs which by virtue of having a license they are expected to have a proper knowledge of . No specific route knowledge is needed to drive a bus(unless it is passenger route knowledge ) or HGV because as a licensed driver you should be able to obey all signs and road layouts . At 70mph it is going to take at most 100m to stop .

A train however is not driven according to line of sight . It is controlled by movement authority so it is necessary to know positions and arrangements for signalling . There are also local quirks to the rail network owing to its age and local instructions which must be known . At 70mph it is going to take a several hundred meters at least to stop .

Same with traction training , different classes of train have different handling characteristics . Drivers are also expected to know a lot more fault finding which is a large part of traction training .

Trucks are going to all meet a minimum set of standards .

The 'truck' model results in driver's taking vehicles down narrow lanes and over weak bridges.

Failures of the 'rail' model of route learning resulted in the introduction first of ATP and then of TPWS, because the driver cannot be relied upon.

This is why both road and rail are heading towards driverless operation. There are those who argue that the idea of having human driver will be seen as totally unsafe.

And remote condition monitoring means that the depot knows the engine problem before the driver.

 

[4973]

FWIW I have flown on a small plane which was pilot only operated.

I understand that the regulations (internationally) are that all passenger carrying aircraft on scheduled flights or of more than a certain weight MUST have two pilots at takeoff. On flights of more than a certain duration (not sure what but about 6 hours) there must be 3 pilots.

There are other (and very stringent) regulations regarding the licences that the pilots must hold.

 

[HH]

I understand that the regulations (internationally) are that all passenger carrying aircraft on scheduled flights or of more than a certain weight MUST have two pilots at takeoff. On flights of more than a certain duration (not sure what but about 6 hours) there must be 3 pilots.

There are other (and very stringent) regulations regarding the licences that the pilots must hold.

I think around 8 hours, because I recall when my plane to the US, normal journey around 7-8 hours got diverted due to bad weather, it had to set down to take an extra pilot on board.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which, if any, other countries have DOO?

Near enough all Swiss regional trains are DOO. Many DB ones are as well. On DB regional LHCS sets you also have a hybrid a bit like Southern - there is a "guard" but he is responsible for on-board service and not dispatch.

In Switzerland a lower level of safety is accepted than here, so I expect there will have been such incidents but I don't know about them. Certainly the dispatch is less safe - it's mostly based on the interlock and a quick glance in a small wing mirror attached to the train.

 

[northwichcat]

Honestly, the DOO stuff has been done to death. It would be great if we could talk about the dispute and how it might be resolved, rather than rehash, for the millionth time, analogies about planes and buses.

If the RMT think there is concrete evidence that the guard is safety critical then why don't they take that argument to court to try and get the law changed so that trains cannot operate without guards? That would then put the argument to bed unless there are major changes to the way trains operate.

 

[bahnause]

In Switzerland a lower level of safety is accepted than here, so I expect there will have been such incidents but I don't know about them. Certainly the dispatch is less safe - it's mostly based on the interlock and a quick glance in a small wing mirror attached to the train.

I don't think it is a lower level of safety. The main responsibility of the driver is observing the signals and the route. In my opinion not distracting the driver from this priority tasks adds to the level of safety. The consequences of a SPAD can be much more serious then a trap and drag, which will be most likely prevented by the door systems anyway. The trains and platforms are usually designed for DOO (no or only a small gap / step). Some self-responsible behavior is expected from the passengers as well.

The last fatal trap and drag occured in Januray 2016 according to the SUST (=RAIB):

https://www2.sust.admin.ch/pdfs/BS//pdf/2016011301_VB.pdf

 

[coppercapped]

Near enough all Swiss regional trains are DOO. Many DB ones are as well. On DB regional LHCS sets you also have a hybrid a bit like Southern - there is a "guard" but he is responsible for on-board service and not dispatch.

In Switzerland a lower level of safety is accepted than here, so I expect there will have been such incidents but I don't know about them. Certainly the dispatch is less safe - it's mostly based on the interlock and a quick glance in a small wing mirror attached to the train.

I would add that the German S-Bahn networks of which I have personal experience, Munich, Stuttgart and Berlin, are fully DOO. There were some trap and drag incidents with the ET423 trains in Munich and the Rhein-Ruhr networks in the early days which have since been overcome by a close-spaced grid of sensor beams over the door openings. (The doors close automatically after a short delay after the last person has passed through. When the train is ready to depart the doors are then locked by the driver).

The French RER network through Paris is DOO as are the suburban services I used to use into Gare St. Lazare.

And of course 4 million people a day use the UndergrounD in London which is entirely DOO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That approach of DB doors closing after a very short delay (approx 5 seconds of non-use) is worth noting - in most cases, all doors will be closed well before actual departure, and that leaves time for someone who gets trapped to press open and extract themselves. And if any do close on departure, it's only one or two to watch.

If the beams remain broken the driver can still press lock, but has to get out, walk to the door and press a button locally to close it.