Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Domeyhead]

If the sociopathic elite that we, as a society, seem to love elevating to positions of power and responsibility, didn't periodically try to stomp and railroad over others, there wouldn't be any need for strike action, or the associated inconvenience to the general public. People are not striking for the fun of it, they are striking because they feel the decisions being made by the big chiefs are wrong in a big way, and they are not listening to the concerns of the workforce at the front end. Therefore, don't take your frustration out on the unions, take it out on those who have motivated the union to enact strike action in the first place. Speak out against the perpetrators, not the retaliation.

No. I don't know whether you are an RMT member or not but the RMT and its members are the perpetrators of strikes not the company, and as an adult and passenger I am tired of other apparently responsible adults taking strike action then pointing the finger at someone else! If you want to strike you are responsible. RMT and its members are not the arbiters of safety on the railway. Others appointed to that role in the DFT / ORR with a more objective outlook are, and have already pronounced the technology and the operation as safe and that is good enough for me. There is this crazy sense in many industries (not just this one) that somehow nobody except median operational technical grades actually "Know what is really going on" and that they have some kind of perspective that gives them this unique insight. Well funnily enough, it isn't true on the railways any more than it is in my industry. Your piece above reeks of the same old whining passive aggressive sense of victimhood and retaliation that I last saw in the playground. The juxtaposition in the mouth of an adult is contemptible.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

The railway has a well established Gold/Silver/Bronze command structure for incident management, i can assure you that these roles and the responsibilities that they have are very significant. I could name numerous occasions on which these roles take direct responsibility for the safe operation of the railway in such circumstances. Suggesting that there is not parallel is somewhat niaive I'd say.

All they ( those tryingto play the man here ) are doing is demonstrating their ignornance ...

Gold-Silver-Bronze is now firmly entrenched in how all kinds of organisations manage ' incidents ' which require a specific response ...

anyone who actually has an understanding of of the relevance of someone saying they have experience as a Silver Commander - will be aware ofthe skill set and scope of responsibilities of the role .


also as those who areresorting to ad-homs are failing to understand , the fact that we are talking aobut semi -skilled and technician staff does have an inportant significance in relation to their wider education and training aobut organisational behaviour , critical analysis of evidence and information and so on ... all stuff that simpley is not covered in technical training or NQF level 3 vocational qualifications - these are topics which are only reaclly dealt with at NQF5 and above ... (NQF is HND/DipHE, 2nd year undergrad level )
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It seems to me that there are two logical possible courses of action based on the issue of safety:

1. DOO in principle is declared safe by whichever independent assessing bodies are/have been appointed to decide, and it is applied throughout the rest of the network in phases, with any possible specific exclusions being set out by the assessors.

2. DOO is declared unsafe through the same channels, and is therefore not only not pursued any further, but is also rescinded where it already operates.

Any other outcomes of the current situation, using the safety issue alone, would be compromises. While that is not to say they won't happen, they will not be based on logic. I don't pretend to be able to forecast which way it will go, but I suspect there won't be a logical outcome.

exactly and you will find that case 1 has happened again and again on both NR and other 'lighter' systems such as LU and T+W Metro

 

[Don King]

No. I don't know whether you are an RMT member or not but the RMT and its members are the perpetrators of strikes not the company, and as an adult and passenger I am tired of other apparently responsible adults taking strike action then pointing the finger at someone else! If you want to strike you are responsible. RMT and its members are not the arbiters of safety on the railway. Others appointed to that role in the DFT / ORR with a more objective outlook are, and have already pronounced the technology and the operation as safe and that is good enough for me. There is this crazy sense in many industries (not just this one) that somehow nobody except median operational technical grades actually "Know what is really going on" and that they have some kind of perspective that gives them this unique insight. Well funnily enough, it isn't true on the railways any more than it is in my industry. Your piece above reeks of the same old whining passive aggressive sense of victimhood and retaliation that I last saw in the playground. The juxtaposition in the mouth of an adult is contemptible.

Traincrew or "median operational technical grades" are the ones with formal warnings / demotions / on the dole queue / in the dock when it goes wrong.

Of course we really know what is going on more than the government or mouthy DFT rabble rousers looking for a punch up, same as a copper, nurse, soldier, teacher, doctor, computer programmer, taxi driver or engineer does.

When you have been repeatedly told by your mangement that you and you alone could risk facing prison for any screw ups and keep banging on about the risks of distraction from professionals such as the signaller, travelling fitters, dispatch staff or whatever, then some bureaucrat / corporate tells you that it is perfectly safe to deal with drunks, criminals and vulnerable people the very people who are a real distraction on top of your duties, it is not surprising we treat this ludicrious suggestion with the contempt it deserves.

The attitude that "median operational technical grades" are too ignorant / stupid / childish to know what to think / like, or have an opinion on when extrapolated nationally and globally is precisely why we now have Trump / Brexit / UKIP and Corbyn. Ordinary people are sick of technocrats telling them they don't know any better and having their job cut / outsourced / offshored or just made plain more stressful is something they should support.

 

[BestWestern]

All they ( those tryingto play the man here ) are doing is demonstrating their ignornance ...

Gold-Silver-Bronze is now firmly entrenched in how all kinds of organisations manage ' incidents' which require a specific response ...

anyone who actually has an understanding of of the relevance of someone saying they have experience as a Silver Commander - will be aware ofthe skill set and scope of responsibilities of the role .

You appear equally ignorant, I'm afraid, of the fact that none of the above has any meaning or relevance to the people who are required to deal with an emergency when it actually happens. All the highly qualified people in the world are of zero importance in that first instance, when the initial critical actions are being carried out. The chaps with the titles don't appear until a long time after the initial emergency communication has taken place, trains have been stopped, traction power isolated and a whole host of vital information has been passed. It is the person or people carrying out those actions who start turning the wheels that bring you to the scene.

You drastically miss the point here; this conversation is about those people charged with dealing with the incident long before the cavalry arrives; nobody is challenging whatever the happens later on. This about getting the issues dealt with at the most critical time, right at the start when the danger is greatest. Those who understand so much about safety should be able to grasp the fundamental benefits of not leaving all of the responsibility to one single individual, and indeed the most vulnerably placed person on the train.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

You appear equally ignorant, I'm afraid, of the fact that none of the above has any meaning or relevance to the people who are required to deal with an emergency when it actually happens. All the highly qualified people in the world are of zero importance in that first instance, when the initial critical actions are being carried out. The chaps with the titles don't appear until a long time after the initial emergency communication has taken place, trains have been stopped, traction power isolated and a whole host of vital information has been passed. It is the person or people carrying out those actions who start turning the wheels that bring you to the scene.

You drastically miss the point here; this conversation is about those people charged with dealing with the incident long before the cavalry arrives; nobody is challenging whatever the happens later on. This about getting the issues dealt with at the most critical time, right at the start when the danger is greatest. Those who understand so much about safety should be able to grasp the fundamental benefits of not leaving all of the responsibility to one single individual, and indeed the most vulnerably placed person on the train.

But that would mean common sense and we can't have that on here now can we. I have been on this forum a long long time but it never ceases to amaze me how many people who have never done the job actually know how to do the job and do it better.

 

[HH]

Come on guys. Safety is always relative and there's always a cost element in every decision.

Clearly, the rather silly example of having a guard on every door is safer than one guard. You could go on spending money almost ad infinitum trying to increase safety, but at some point even the most safety obsessed person would agree that it's not money well spent. So the issue is not really about what is the safest method of operation, it's about where it's sensible to draw the line on spending money.

And none of us know the answer to that, because there isn't one - it depends on how you set your parameters.

 

[HowardGWR]

Come on guys. Safety is always relative and there's always a cost element in every decision.

Clearly, the rather silly example of having a guard on every door is safer than one guard. You could go on spending money almost ad infinitum trying to increase safety, but at some point even the most safety obsessed person would agree that it's not money well spent. So the issue is not really about what is the safest method of operation, it's about where it's sensible to draw the line on spending money.

And none of us know the answer to that, because there isn't one - it depends on how you set your parameters.

Yes, if it is unsafe to have only one member of staff on a train, why have guards on freight trains been done away with. We just get one straw man after another here and it isn't working, I'm afraid.

The issue on DOO safety has to do with closing doors by the driver and only that issue. Hundreds of trains are being operated every day in this way, very safely, and that makes the notion that this is not safe, difficult for observers to swallow.

I am afraid it is QED. I do take the point about not introducing DOO on a specific line until the driver checking methods are demonstrably safe.

 

[BestWestern]

Come on guys. Safety is always relative and there's always a cost element in every decision.

Clearly, the rather silly example of having a guard on every door is safer than one guard. You could go on spending money almost ad infinitum trying to increase safety, but at some point even the most safety obsessed person would agree that it's not money well spent. So the issue is not really about what is the safest method of operation, it's about where it's sensible to draw the line on spending money.

And none of us know the answer to that, because there isn't one - it depends on how you set your parameters.

True. However, the example of two trained crew members, both with a valid job to do and both trained to deal with emergency situations, is not silly. It is sensible and perfectly reasonable. The argument "you could say 10 Guards is safer than one" etc has been rolled out dozens of times, and yes it is of course daft. But nobody's asking for that. We generally appear to have agreement that two people on board is better than one, to suggest that they should both have a sensible share of the workload and both be able to act in an emergency to put procedures into place, is not daft in the slightest.

 

[Squonk]

.....

 

[redbutton]

So, forgive my slowness then, have GTR ever said or implied that OBS staff won't be fully trained in how to close that external door safely?

The change was made literally overnight by posting a notice in the notice case describing the new responsibilities. IMO, there was no time for training, let alone proper safety-critical training and assessment.

That said, keying on the guard's panel to isolate the local door was already part of the OBS duties should they be called upon to place the wheelchair ramp. This latest change just says that the OBS is to key on at each station in order to alight and check the platform for potential pax needing assistance.

My understanding remains that the substance of the OBS's safety training can be summarised as "if something happens, tell the driver."

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Traincrew or "median operational technical grades" are the ones with formal warnings / demotions / on the dole queue / in the dock when it goes wrong.

Of course we really know what is going on more than the government or mouthy DFT rabble rousers looking for a punch up, same as a copper, nurse, soldier, teacher, doctor, computer programmer, taxi driver or engineer does.

When you have been repeatedly told by your mangement that you and you alone could risk facing prison for any screw ups and keep banging on about the risks of distraction from professionals such as the signaller, travelling fitters, dispatch staff or whatever, then some bureaucrat / corporate tells you that it is perfectly safe to deal with drunks, criminals and vulnerable people the very people who are a real distraction on top of your duties, it is not surprising we treat this ludicrious suggestion with the contempt it deserves.

The attitude that "median operational technical grades" are too ignorant / stupid / childish to know what to think / like, or have an opinion on when extrapolated nationally and globally is precisely why we now have Trump / Brexit / UKIP and Corbyn. Ordinary people are sick of technocrats telling them they don't know any better and having their job cut / outsourced / offshored or just made plain more stressful is something they should support.

I'm unsure where this term "median operational technical grades" has come from , it's not a term i have used, it's nota term I recognise from any ONS or other government analysis or employment of 'social class' ...

The fact is those whose educational achievements do not go beyond school leaving qualification levels are ignorant of the realities of a lot of things , 'common knowledge' and 'accepted truths' being proof positive of such things, plus the insistence that things evidenced and with a good theoretical basis are wrong vs the 'man in the street' explanation pulled out of someone's backside ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You appear equally ignorant, I'm afraid, of the fact that none of the above has any meaning or relevance to the people who are required to deal with an emergency when it actually happens. All the highly qualified people in the world are of zero importance in that first instance, when the initial critical actions are being carried out. The chaps with the titles don't appear until a long time after the initial emergency communication has taken place, trains have been stopped, traction power isolated and a whole host of vital information has been passed. It is the person or people carrying out those actions who start turning the wheels that bring you to the scene.

You drastically miss the point here; this conversation is about those people charged with dealing with the incident long before the cavalry arrives; nobody is challenging whatever the happens later on. This about getting the issues dealt with at the most critical time, right at the start when the danger is greatest. Those who understand so much about safety should be able to grasp the fundamental benefits of not leaving all of the responsibility to one single individual, and indeed the most vulnerably placed person on the train.

What part of i have spent nearly 20 years dealing with life critical situations on front line operational duties do you not understand ... notr that as the holder of a Supporting learners in Practice award at NQF Level 6 ; I have also supervised and assessed students / trainees/ learners in these roles and taught the theoretical aspects in formal training settings.

What part of as well as that above experience, I have the training ,education, skills , knowledge and experience of both Silver level Operational management in events which i if they were unplanned would be classified as Major Incidents in the definition used by the Emergency Services and Government as a whole - and in common use in business?

and to top it all i've also held a strategic governance post in a CQC registered Organisation including at one point beign the Named accountable person for an aspect of the governance arrangements ...

but of course technocrats know nothing compared to some beer and sandwiches shop steward / barrack room lawyer who doesn't have the knowledge and experience of the wider pictures - but then again the first part of gettign beyond Dunning- Kruger is admitteing how little you know of the wider issues ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Come on guys. Safety is always relative and there's always a cost element in every decision.

Clearly, the rather silly example of having a guard on every door is safer than one guard. You could go on spending money almost ad infinitum trying to increase safety, but at some point even the most safety obsessed person would agree that it's not money well spent. So the issue is not really about what is the safest method of operation, it's about where it's sensible to draw the line on spending money.

And none of us know the answer to that, because there isn't one - it depends on how you set your parameters.

exactly

and 'guard' / Steward at every door is what the railtour operators have to resort to either because ofthe lack of CDL or because of the idiotic and dangerous behaviour of the bahsers and gricers
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, if it is unsafe to have only one member of staff on a train, why have guards on freight trains been done away with. We just get one straw man after another here and it isn't working, I'm afraid.

The issue on DOO safety has to do with closing doors by the driver and only that issue. Hundreds of trains are being operated every day in this way, very safely, and that makes the notion that this is not safe, difficult for observers to swallow.

I am afraid it is QED. I do take the point about not introducing DOO on a specific line until the driver checking methods are demonstrably safe.

exactly if traincrew were actually 'Safety Critical' in the way some are painting - and how peopel who are actually educated in such matters understand the term rather than the meaning attached to it by the RMT and ASLEF formation shroud waving teams ...

then EVERY train using NR metals regardless of whether it;s T+W metrocar/ sheffield supertramtrain/ a class 153 or the heaviest longest freights via Pendos / Javelins / IEP/91+mk 4s would retain driver, secondman and guard ...

 

[Don King]

I'm unsure where this term "median operational technical grades" has come from , it's not a term i have used, it's nota term I recognise from any ONS or other government analysis or employment of 'social class' ...

The fact is those whose educational achievements do not go beyond school leaving qualification levels are ignorant of the realities of a lot of things , 'common knowledge' and 'accepted truths' being proof positive of such things, plus the insistence that things evidenced and with a good theoretical basis are wrong vs the 'man in the street' explanation pulled out of someone's backside ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What part of i have spent nearly 20 years dealing with life critical situations on front line operational duties do you not understand ... notr that as the holder of a Supporting learners in Practice award at NQF Level 6 ; I have also supervised and assessed students / trainees/ learners in these roles and taught the theoretical aspects in formal training settings.

What part of as well as that above experience, I have the training ,education, skills , knowledge and experience of both Silver level Operational management in events which i if they were unplanned would be classified as Major Incidents in the definition used by the Emergency Services and Government as a whole - and in common use in business?

and to top it all i've also held a strategic governance post in a CQC registered Organisation including at one point beign the Named accountable person for an aspect of the governance arrangements ...

but of course technocrats know nothing compared to some beer and sandwiches shop steward / barrack room lawyer who doesn't have the knowledge and experience of the wider pictures - but then again the first part of gettign beyond Dunning- Kruger is admitteing how little you know of the wider issues ...

The term "median operational technical grades" was used by a previous poster, who seems to share the same view that working class / lower middle class (whatever you want to call them) employees who do a C1, C2 or D grade position (if we are using NRS social grading) are not qualified to voice a valid opinion on issues involving their own job, because they do not apparently have the intelligence to see the real picture as the political / corporate class apparently do.

Your qualifications are of zero value compared to the skills and experience needed to do the meat and potatoes of frontline railway work, just as my personal track safety certificate is of zero value on the football field, in a car maintenance garage or in the kitchen of a Michelin starred resturaunt. Your pieces of paper will not make it any easier for you to dispatch trains, deal with drunks and unruly passengers, train evacuations or emergency situations, all whilst maintaing top concentration at all times in charge of hundreds of tons at high speeds in all weathers. If for arguments sake I held a PhD in physics, it would not make DOO any better, take the liability and risk of an incident off frontline staff, make it more pleasant to work with, nor change my opinion. Boasting about what you have done does not change anything, nor make you more qualified to comment on these issues, and instead comes across as exactly the same sort of attitude which lead to ordinary people putting your nemesis Mr Corbyn into the Labour leaders' position, and also voting for UKIP in the 2014 Euro elections, a vote for Brexit and the Trump presidency, because quite simply they are sick of being told that they are too stupid to understand what is going on.

You go on about how you have been a trainer, supervised this and that and so on. The instructor drivers are against DOO. Driver managers and their regional manager are against DOO. There are plenty of senior managers who are against DOO. Even the RSSB in their reports admit that DOO introduces added safety risks. I know you think we railway workers are a bunch of chimps who can barely articulate anything greater than raising our left fist in the air and scream “Power to the People” at the mention of Jeremy Corbyn, but as has been stated before by plenty of other people on here there are people of many years of rail experience in senior and training grades who have anything from serious reservations to outright hostility towards DOO, many who do hold degrees and various vocational qualifications. My direct boss is strongly against DOO for the same reasons I am, not to mention the additional issues surrounding training, paperwork, liability and having to deal with even more incidents, issues, delays and whatnot. He does not want to have to deal with trap and drags, door issues, incidents caised by distractions related to DOO, passengers reporting drivers for things the guard and station staff should be dealing with, assaults, spitting, abuse, and whatever else it brings, on top of TPWS, spads, overspeeds, fatalities, brick chuckers and so on.

Incidentally train companies recruit a hell of a lot of people who have had quite professional backgrounds. In my company alone we have drivers who have previously been Marines, long serving members of the armed forces, police including CID and military police, an insurance claims analyst, teachers, draughtsmen, an aircraft engineer, qualified pilots, software engineers and various levels of management positions both within the railways and from outside. I even know of one guard who for years was a statistician who worked in the City, who joined the railway after taking redudancy to live a boyhood dream – and I would wager he was rather smart and had passed some pretty intense exams. Guess what, the overwhelming bulk of them think DOO is an appalling idea.

Fact of the matter is that you have no clue about the realities traincrew face day in day out, nor the liablity put on them, despite all this shouting about “shroud waving” or bringing an irrelevant hatred of far left politics into to the argument, which has has much to do with the issue of DOO, as if I started ranting on about Everton FC. As I have said before there are a range of political views amongst railway workers and union members - although I can assure you that whether they are left leaning or right leaning, they are sick to death of being told what to think. I have no idea about the realities a policeman, a nurse, firefighter or even other railway grades such as signallers, ECO’s, p-way, or mobile operations managers face either. Unlike you though, I will choose to listen to these people and their opinions, rather than dismiss them as simpletons who don’t know what’s best for them.

 

[BestWestern]

I'm unsure where this term "median operational technical grades" has come from , it's not a term i have used, it's nota term I recognise from any ONS or other government analysis or employment of 'social class' ...

The fact is those whose educational achievements do not go beyond school leaving qualification levels are ignorant of the realities of a lot of things , 'common knowledge' and 'accepted truths' being proof positive of such things, plus the insistence that things evidenced and with a good theoretical basis are wrong vs the 'man in the street' explanation pulled out of someone's backside ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What part of i have spent nearly 20 years dealing with life critical situations on front line operational duties do you not understand ... notr that as the holder of a Supporting learners in Practice award at NQF Level 6 ; I have also supervised and assessed students / trainees/ learners in these roles and taught the theoretical aspects in formal training settings.

What part of as well as that above experience, I have the training ,education, skills , knowledge and experience of both Silver level Operational management in events which i if they were unplanned would be classified as Major Incidents in the definition used by the Emergency Services and Government as a whole - and in common use in business?

and to top it all i've also held a strategic governance post in a CQC registered Organisation including at one point beign the Named accountable person for an aspect of the governance arrangements ...

but of course technocrats know nothing compared to some beer and sandwiches shop steward / barrack room lawyer who doesn't have the knowledge and experience of the wider pictures - but then again the first part of gettign beyond Dunning- Kruger is admitteing how little you know of the wider issues ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


exactly

and 'guard' / Steward at every door is what the railtour operators have to resort to either because ofthe lack of CDL or because of the idiotic and dangerous behaviour of the bahsers and gricers
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


exactly if traincrew were actually 'Safety Critical' in the way some are painting - and how peopel who are actually educated in such matters understand the term rather than the meaning attached to it by the RMT and ASLEF formation shroud waving teams ...

then EVERY train using NR metals regardless of whether it;s T+W metrocar/ sheffield supertramtrain/ a class 153 or the heaviest longest freights via Pendos / Javelins / IEP/91+mk 4s would retain driver, secondman and guard ...

Your arrogance is staggering. Try knocking yourself out of 'ego overdrive' mode and listen to what people are telling you. Your 'MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU BADGE' is not remotely relevant here. "I know best because I have a bit of paper that says so" is a well trodden but little proved path. You can take all the training courses you like, it has little connection with the act of actually operating the railway, nor does it qualify you to have a more valid opinion than the people who do it for real, rather than just reading about it whilst they gain those nice certificates.

 

[Domeyhead]

Traincrew or "median operational technical grades" are the ones with formal warnings / demotions / on the dole queue / in the dock when it goes wrong.

Of course we really know what is going on more than the government or mouthy DFT rabble rousers looking for a punch up, same as a copper, nurse, soldier, teacher, doctor, computer programmer, taxi driver or engineer does.

When you have been repeatedly told by your mangement that you and you alone could risk facing prison for any screw ups and keep banging on about the risks of distraction from professionals such as the signaller, travelling fitters, dispatch staff or whatever, then some bureaucrat / corporate tells you that it is perfectly safe to deal with drunks, criminals and vulnerable people the very people who are a real distraction on top of your duties, it is not surprising we treat this ludicrious suggestion with the contempt it deserves.

The attitude that "median operational technical grades" are too ignorant / stupid / childish to know what to think / like, or have an opinion on when extrapolated nationally and globally is precisely why we now have Trump / Brexit / UKIP and Corbyn. Ordinary people are sick of technocrats telling them they don't know any better and having their job cut / outsourced / offshored or just made plain more stressful is something they should support.

Look, if you are thin skinned or have a chip on your shoulder then I apologise, but the observation still stands. The grade as far as I know, is not related to class, or political persuasion, maturity, of social standing as you seem to think, and I did not imply that it was, but it is related to things like perspective, timescale outlook and proportionality. You seem to be ready to politicise the discussion at the drop of a hat. I don't suppose closing train doors figures that highly in Cabinet meetings but if you like to imagine furtive discussions in Westminster corridors and secret deals to "crush" (an RMT word, not mine) the guards by taking away control of a button then we will have to agree to differ. I observed that making strategic judgements from the operational layer of a business does not make sense. That should be obvious, for obvious reasons, and to be frank it is - usually. By the way, wouldn't it be easier to deal with drunks and ticketless travellers if you did not have to keep breaking off to open and close doors?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The term "median operational technical grades" was used by a previous poster, who seems to share the same view that working class / lower middle class (whatever you want to call them) employees who do a C1, C2 or D grade position (if we are using NRS social grading) are not qualified to voice a valid opinion on issues involving their own job, because they do not apparently have the intelligence to see the real picture as the political / corporate class apparently do.

Your qualifications are of zero value compared to the skills and experience needed to do the meat and potatoes of frontline railway work, just as my personal track safety certificate is of zero value on the football field, in a car maintenance garage or in the kitchen of a Michelin starred resturaunt. Your pieces of paper will not make it any easier for you to dispatch trains, deal with drunks and unruly passengers, train evacuations or emergency situations, all whilst maintaing top concentration at all times in charge of hundreds of tons at high speeds in all weathers. If for arguments sake I held a PhD in physics, it would not make DOO any better, take the liability and risk of an incident off frontline staff, make it more pleasant to work with, nor change my opinion. Boasting about what you have done does not change anything, nor make you more qualified to comment on these issues, and instead comes across as exactly the same sort of attitude which lead to ordinary people putting your nemesis Mr Corbyn into the Labour leaders' position, and also voting for UKIP in the 2014 Euro elections, a vote for Brexit and the Trump presidency, because quite simply they are sick of being told that they are too stupid to understand what is going on.

You go on about how you have been a trainer, supervised this and that and so on. The instructor drivers are against DOO. Driver managers and their regional manager are against DOO. There are plenty of senior managers who are against DOO. Even the RSSB in their reports admit that DOO introduces added safety risks. I know you think we railway workers are a bunch of chimps who can barely articulate anything greater than raising our left fist in the air and scream “Power to the People” at the mention of Jeremy Corbyn, but as has been stated before by plenty of other people on here there are people of many years of rail experience in senior and training grades who have anything from serious reservations to outright hostility towards DOO, many who do hold degrees and various vocational qualifications. My direct boss is strongly against DOO for the same reasons I am, not to mention the additional issues surrounding training, paperwork, liability and having to deal with even more incidents, issues, delays and whatnot. He does not want to have to deal with trap and drags, door issues, incidents caised by distractions related to DOO, passengers reporting drivers for things the guard and station staff should be dealing with, assaults, spitting, abuse, and whatever else it brings, on top of TPWS, spads, overspeeds, fatalities, brick chuckers and so on.

Incidentally train companies recruit a hell of a lot of people who have had quite professional backgrounds. In my company alone we have drivers who have previously been Marines, long serving members of the armed forces, police including CID and military police, an insurance claims analyst, teachers, draughtsmen, an aircraft engineer, qualified pilots, software engineers and various levels of management positions both within the railways and from outside. I even know of one guard who for years was a statistician who worked in the City, who joined the railway after taking redudancy to live a boyhood dream – and I would wager he was rather smart and had passed some pretty intense exams. Guess what, the overwhelming bulk of them think DOO is an appalling idea.

Fact of the matter is that you have no clue about the realities traincrew face day in day out, nor the liablity put on them, despite all this shouting about “shroud waving” or bringing an irrelevant hatred of far left politics into to the argument, which has has much to do with the issue of DOO, as if I started ranting on about Everton FC. As I have said before there are a range of political views amongst railway workers and union members - although I can assure you that whether they are left leaning or right leaning, they are sick to death of being told what to think. I have no idea about the realities a policeman, a nurse, firefighter or even other railway grades such as signallers, ECO’s, p-way, or mobile operations managers face either. Unlike you though, I will choose to listen to these people and their opinions, rather than dismiss them as simpletons who don’t know what’s best for them.

As I have said previously I did not realise you were so thin skinned so I apologise for upsetting you though you have launched into a massive paradigm about motives, politics and so on, all of which is irrelevant. Please don't assume I am attacking you - I am not - I am trying to illustrate proportionality and perspective, and perhaps you are doing it for me. I agree with you up to a point, until you exercise this tired old argument that we can know absolutely nothing about each other's work until we do it. This is nonsense, but it does perhaps help my point that I can see DOO used already even on the same lines, and I can see the safety reports made on and for the railway by those paid to do so. You and the RMT can offer a valuable opinion but that is all. The RMT are not the decision maker, nor should you be. In one breath you tell us that nobody knows the tiniest thing about anything other than their own job, and in the next you are taking responsibility for rail safety cases. Sorry, no you can't, you said so yourself. It isn't your role. If you work as a train guard you are seen, day in, day out by many people, and many regular commuters will accumulate a surprising understanding of the challenges and difficulties as well as the routines, of the role. Nobody - least of all me - would claim for a second that the job is easy because most know there is a huge amount to learn and keep learning and yes there is far more to it than most people could ever guess, so why a small realignment of those responsibilities from train management towards passenger management is seen somehow as a demotion I do not know, but instead of reacting as though you've been stung you could perhaps explain that to me.

 

[Don King]

Look, if you are thin skinned or have a chip on your shoulder then I apologise, but the observation still stands. The grade as far as I know, is not related to class, or political persuasion, maturity, of social standing as you seem to think, and I did not imply that it was, but it is related to things like perspective, timescale outlook and proportionality. You seem to be ready to politicise the discussion at the drop of a hat. I don't suppose closing train doors figures that highly in Cabinet meetings but if you like to imagine furtive discussions in Westminster corridors and secret deals to "crush" (an RMT word, not mine) the guards by taking away control of a button then we will have to agree to differ. I observed that making strategic judgements from the operational layer of a business does not make sense. That should be obvious, for obvious reasons, and to be frank it is - usually. By the way, wouldn't it be easier to deal with drunks and ticketless travellers if you did not have to keep breaking off to open and close doors?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I have said previously I did not realise you were so thin skinned so I apologise for upsetting you though you have launched into a massive paradigm about motives, politics and so on, all of which is irrelevant. Please don't assume I am attacking you - I am not - I am trying to illustrate proportionality and perspective, and perhaps you are doing it for me. I agree with you up to a point, until you exercise this tired old argument that we can know absolutely nothing about each other's work until we do it. This is nonsense, but it does perhaps help my point that I can see DOO used already even on the same lines, and I can see the safety reports made on and for the railway by those paid to do so. You and the RMT can offer a valuable opinion but that is all. The RMT are not the decision maker, nor should you be. In one breath you tell us that nobody knows the tiniest thing about anything other than their own job, and in the next you are taking responsibility for rail safety cases. Sorry, no you can't, you said so yourself. It isn't your role. If you work as a train guard you are seen, day in, day out by many people, and many regular commuters will accumulate a surprising understanding of the challenges and difficulties as well as the routines, of the role. Nobody - least of all me - would claim for a second that the job is easy because most know there is a huge amount to learn and keep learning and yes there is far more to it than most people could ever guess, so why a small realignment of those responsibilities from train management towards passenger management is seen somehow as a demotion I do not know, but instead of reacting as though you've been stung you could perhaps explain that to me.

I see you don’t have the slightest clue and have not read any of the arguments on this thread if you are on yet again about “closing doors”. I am a driver, not a guard. Who physically presses the door close button itself is somewhat of an irrelevence. There are trains where the guard is in control of all functions – the voyager classes 220 / 221 or Southern 377s when operated by the guard from a read / intermediate driving cab, but where the driver actually pressses the physical buttons, as directed by the guard. It is called informally the “ten bell system”.

It is who is responsible for the procedure of dispatching the train from the platform, which is a safety critical task, which if done improperly can in the worst case lead to death, as in the Chris McGhee case. As a driver I do not want to take on this responsibility on top of all of my other responsibilities. Why? We are continutally told that the Platform Train Interface is the most dangerous part of the railway. We are told repeatedly by management that if we make any screw ups we face anything from being on a CDP (Competence Development Plan – which is the first step to demotion / dismissal) to demotion, dismissal and finally prosecution and imprisonment, depending on what happens. The days of being dressed down and a slap on the wrist, but no further action being taken are long gone. As a driver there is enough to worry about, without putting train dispatch issues or dealing with the public directly on our remit as well.

As a driver I do not have direct communication with the passengers on the platform, where as a guard stood on the platform, or station staff do – which is essential when warning late runners / monitoring drunks and all the other behaviour which puts certain types of passengers at risk of injury / death by their own actions. A guard / station staff on modern traction have the ability to position themselves as they see fit on the platform to deal with these issues.

The default position the RSSB wants is DOO self dispatch via CCTV – no guard, no platform staff. The RSSB themselves admit that there is a greater risk of incidents with this system – including, drivers not noticing issues on CCTV to passing signals at danger. The Rail Accident and Investigation Board reports have shown that the bulk of dispatch incidents investigated by them have happened using DOO self dispatch via CCTV, on both mainline railways and the tube.

The CCTV gives one fixed view of the platform, no field of vision, no way to communicate with those on the platform engaging in potentially dangerous / criminal behaviour, is subject to light pollution, snow pollution, rain pollution, appears to be time delayed and has blind spots.

Now we are continually told by managers about distraction issues, both in the cab and at stations. We are told that everything from the signalman calling, a route learner travelling in the front, to the platform dispatcher talking to you, is a risk of distraction. These are safety critical professional rail staff, who will be trained in the risks and be in a sober and sensible state. So when we are told we are supposed to take our eyes off the signal, and start worrying about the behaviour of passengers on platforms, then alarm bells start to ring. I am in no doubt as a passenger you enter and exit the train properly, stand behind the yellow line and so on. You are in the 99%. Unfortunately there is a 1% which do not for whatever reason, and this 1% can be anything from an annoyance to a serious risk to personal safety for the driver. That is an absolutely massive distraction.

So as a driver I am taking on this liability on top of my other duties. You continually go on about how as a driver I am not qualified to talk about rail safety at all, and yet it is myself who will feel the wrath if I make a genuine error. And I am only talking about dispatch issues (or closing the doors as you put it). I haven’t yet begun to touch on dealing with passcoms, anti social behaviour, train evacuation and whatnot - being the person who solely has to deal with it, on top of everything else. Myself and my colleagues are qualified to comment on such issues and raise them as I see fit, whether you or anyone else like that or not. We are the ones that have to deal with the decisions made, and face the consequences. And like it or not we raise these issues with everything from ASLEF and the RMT, to our managers / CIRAS / MPs and so on. It is our role to report dangerous behaviour and problems with systems in place, as much as you hate the idea that it is and repeatedly claim it isn’t. We are expected to submit reports.

As for the politics they were directed at another poster who continually brings them into the discussion, although my point still stands that if you tell the people they are not qualified or educated enough to have an opinion on any issue that affects their job / life / liberty, then you are likely to get political results of the nature we are seeing. I'm not interested in discussing politics, but many people who support DOO seem to bring it up continually. They seem to think retaining guards on trains is somehow a "far left" position, despite the fact that not only have "New" Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs signed Early Day Motions in parliament wanting to keep guards on trains, but so has a Tory MP and DUP MPs. There are many active ASLEF and RMT members who vote UKIP. The unions themselves supported Brexit (for which there is obviously a strong left wing case, but many of their reasons for it were also those shared by UKIP and the right too). Bob Crow was just as concerned about free movement as Nigel Farage.

As for the RMT going on about “crushing”, perhaps you are not familiar with the statements made by the Department for Transports’s Peter Wilkinson at a public meeting… I suggest you read them.

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/department-transport-says-break-train-drivers/story-28783309-detail/story.html

Finally have a look at what the Association of British Commuters is saying, and their copy of an RSSB report, that the RSSB have tried to suppress, in which they actually admit the increased risk of DOO, despite wanting to push it anyway.

https://abcommuters.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/rssb-report-leaked-for-private-eye-expose-now-we-invite-you-to-pick-it-apart/

 

[Deepgreen]

I reiterate my earlier comment - if DOO is unsafe and proven/officially reported to be so, then the only logical course is to rescind it totally. The RMT, who have been the flag-bearer for the issue, have consistently failed to make the case properly in the public domain for banning further DOO extension on safety grounds, let alone for its removal nationally, which is surely the logical fate for an unsafe regime.

Their pronouncements touch on safety but seem always to fall back to the issue of jobs. They do not help their membership by continuing to fail to produce a concrete safety-based case against DOO, rather than the woolly and (as far as the public is concerned) tedious political ranting about basket case franchises, etc. Why did they not produce a strong, evidence-based case months ago to prove their point? As things are, the argument becomes more and more muddled. As the months/years go by, the public will have been absorbing the message from HMG/GTR that DOO is in use so widely as to be demonstrably safe (whether it is or not) and it becomes harder and harder to refute with time.

Until they do make such a case, the issue will stagnate and fester.

 

[Domeyhead]

I see you don’t have the slightest clue and have not read any of the arguments on this thread if you are on yet again about “closing doors”. I am a driver, not a guard. Who physically presses the door close button itself is somewhat of an irrelevence. There are trains where the guard is in control of all functions – the voyager classes 220 / 221 or Southern 377s when operated by the guard from a read / intermediate driving cab, but where the driver actually pressses the physical buttons, as directed by the guard. It is called informally the “ten bell system”.

It is who is responsible for the procedure of dispatching the train from the platform, which is a safety critical task, which if done improperly can in the worst case lead to death, as in the Chris McGhee case. As a driver I do not want to take on this responsibility on top of all of my other responsibilities. Why? We are continutally told that the Platform Train Interface is the most dangerous part of the railway. We are told repeatedly by management that if we make any screw ups we face anything from being on a CDP (Competence Development Plan – which is the first step to demotion / dismissal) to demotion, dismissal and finally prosecution and imprisonment, depending on what happens. The days of being dressed down and a slap on the wrist, but no further action being taken are long gone. As a driver there is enough to worry about, without putting train dispatch issues or dealing with the public directly on our remit as well.

As a driver I do not have direct communication with the passengers on the platform, where as a guard stood on the platform, or station staff do – which is essential when warning late runners / monitoring drunks and all the other behaviour which puts certain types of passengers at risk of injury / death by their own actions. A guard / station staff on modern traction have the ability to position themselves as they see fit on the platform to deal with these issues.

The default position the RSSB wants is DOO self dispatch via CCTV – no guard, no platform staff. The RSSB themselves admit that there is a greater risk of incidents with this system – including, drivers not noticing issues on CCTV to passing signals at danger. The Rail Accident and Investigation Board reports have shown that the bulk of dispatch incidents investigated by them have happened using DOO self dispatch via CCTV, on both mainline railways and the tube.

The CCTV gives one fixed view of the platform, no field of vision, no way to communicate with those on the platform engaging in potentially dangerous / criminal behaviour, is subject to light pollution, snow pollution, rain pollution, appears to be time delayed and has blind spots.

Now we are continually told by managers about distraction issues, both in the cab and at stations. We are told that everything from the signalman calling, a route learner travelling in the front, to the platform dispatcher talking to you, is a risk of distraction. These are safety critical professional rail staff, who will be trained in the risks and be in a sober and sensible state. So when we are told we are supposed to take our eyes off the signal, and start worrying about the behaviour of passengers on platforms, then alarm bells start to ring. I am in no doubt as a passenger you enter and exit the train properly, stand behind the yellow line and so on. You are in the 99%. Unfortunately there is a 1% which do not for whatever reason, and this 1% can be anything from an annoyance to a serious risk to personal safety for the driver. That is an absolutely massive distraction.

So as a driver I am taking on this liability on top of my other duties. You continually go on about how as a driver I am not qualified to talk about rail safety at all, and yet it is myself who will feel the wrath if I make a genuine error. And I am only talking about dispatch issues (or closing the doors as you put it). I haven’t yet begun to touch on dealing with passcoms, anti social behaviour, train evacuation and whatnot - being the person who solely has to deal with it, on top of everything else. Myself and my colleagues are qualified to comment on such issues and raise them as I see fit, whether you or anyone else like that or not. We are the ones that have to deal with the decisions made, and face the consequences. And like it or not we raise these issues with everything from ASLEF and the RMT, to our managers / CIRAS / MPs and so on. It is our role to report dangerous behaviour and problems with systems in place, as much as you hate the idea that it is and repeatedly claim it isn’t. We are expected to submit reports.

As for the politics they were directed at another poster who continually brings them into the discussion, although my point still stands that if you tell the people they are not qualified or educated enough to have an opinion on any issue that affects their job / life / liberty, then you are likely to get political results of the nature we are seeing. I'm not interested in discussing politics, but many people who support DOO seem to bring it up continually. They seem to think retaining guards on trains is somehow a "far left" position, despite the fact that not only have "New" Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs signed Early Day Motions in parliament wanting to keep guards on trains, but so has a Tory MP and DUP MPs. There are many active ASLEF and RMT members who vote UKIP. The unions themselves supported Brexit (for which there is obviously a strong left wing case, but many of their reasons for it were also those shared by UKIP and the right too). Bob Crow was just as concerned about free movement as Nigel Farage.

As for the RMT going on about “crushing”, perhaps you are not familiar with the statements made by the Department for Transports’s Peter Wilkinson at a public meeting… I suggest you read them.

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/department-transport-says-break-train-drivers/story-28783309-detail/story.html

Finally have a look at what the Association of British Commuters is saying, and their copy of an RSSB report, that the RSSB have tried to suppress, in which they actually admit the increased risk of DOO, despite wanting to push it anyway.

https://abcommuters.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/rssb-report-leaked-for-private-eye-expose-now-we-invite-you-to-pick-it-apart/

One thing we can agree on Don is the stupidity of Peter Wilkinson's statements. I have the misfortune to deal with other Government Agencies (OFGEM) particularly) and I can assure you he is not the only idiot in this particularly irritating mid tier of Government. I would not give him the satisfaction of controlling the direction this discussion.
One other point that gets raised constantly is personal liability. I do not think there is any chance - despite what middle managers may say, (and again there are plenty who talk rubbish and who also are misinformed) if an employee has performed his job in any industry as instructed and an accident follows he is not going to be prosecuted for any offence unless of course he broke the criminal law as well . The only way a driver or guard should be liable is if they have been negligent in some way or performed some deliberate dereliction for which no good reason exists - eg to avoid greater harm . So I am "Liable" whenever I get in my car, so is everyone else. I would also be liable if I create a situation where employees are forced to perform tasks that endangered themselves or others. We all have duties of care so I don;t buy into the constant defence that innocent train crews are in danger of prosecution for the actions of the TOC. That is not so. There also has to be negligence of some kind. It is clear that any case against an employee doing his job as instructed and obeying the conditions of employment and obeying the the criminal law is not going to last 5 minutes in any court.

 

[HH]

I reiterate my earlier comment - if DOO is unsafe and proven/officially reported to be so, then the only logical course is to rescind it totally.

This shows that you still don't properly understand the situation; DOO isn't unsafe, it is considered less safe than Driver & Guard in most circumstances.

 

[BestWestern]

One other point that gets raised constantly is personal liability. I do not think there is any chance - despite what middle managers may say, (and again there are plenty who talk rubbish and who also are misinformed) if an employee has performed his job in any industry as instructed and an accident follows he is not going to be prosecuted for any offence unless of course he broke the criminal law as well . The only way a driver or guard should be liable is if they have been negligent in some way or performed some deliberate dereliction for which no good reason exists - eg to avoid greater harm . So I am "Liable" whenever I get in my car, so is everyone else. I would also be liable if I create a situation where employees are forced to perform tasks that endangered themselves or others. We all have duties of care so I don;t buy into the constant defence that innocent train crews are in danger of prosecution for the actions of the TOC. That is not so. There also has to be negligence of some kind. It is clear that any case against an employee doing his job as instructed and obeying the conditions of employment and obeying the the criminal law is not going to last 5 minutes in any court.

And this is where the 'insider' experience comes aboard. You speak from the common sense, black & white viewpoint of someone who assumes, from an external position, that things are straightforward and simple. Ideally that would be so. The reality is different. Speaking to DOO Drivers reveals that there are many, many compromises, every day. Monitors which are unfit for purpose, equipment which is faulty, poor view of screens or mirrors because of sunlight, to name but a few. Drivers could all refuse to turn the wheels until everything is exactly to the letter of the rules, but as in most industries, they don't. They grudgingly accept that their working environment is less than ideal sometimes, and they do their best. Few are willing to be the 'problem employee' who works to the letter, has endless delays and ends up well and truly on the radar. Corporations use their people to cover their backside, it is not a new thing. People are expected to toe the line. Ask a bus driver if their schedules are realistic. They'll tell you very rarely. Ask them how they manage, then, to keep to time whilst obeying the rules of the highway to the very letter. Ask them if their managers are willing to share some of the blame if they're caught speeding.

To presume that everything is precisely as it always should be is naive. Again, people really do need to listen to the people who do the job.

 

[Carlisle]

As for the RMT going on about “crushing”, perhaps you are not familiar with the statements made by the Department for Transports’s Peter Wilkinson at a public meeting… I suggest you read them.

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/department-transport-says-break-train-drivers/story-28783309-detail/story.html
]

Im sure your well aware the ASLEF and RMT pact signed in summer 2015 during the GWR strikes stated that whilst they'd honour exiting deals no more DOO/DCO agreements would be signed under any circumstances anywhere, so Wilkos daft speech (Feb 2016) was irrelevant, the unions battle was planned long before it and would have taken place regardless

 

[Deepgreen]

This shows that you still don't properly understand the situation; DOO isn't unsafe, it is considered less safe than Driver & Guard in most circumstances.

I wrote IF specifically for this reason. Nothing is 'safe' - every activity/state of being has risks. Some activities are considered 'safe' (enough) as far as normal operation is concerned, thus DOO is considered 'safe' where it presently in operation, including, presumably, by those drivers who are prepared to work under the regime. If they are knowingly operating an unsafe regime they potentially start to accrue liability.

If it can be proved to be not 'safe' (i.e. not safe enough to satisfy the 'authorities') then it must logically be discontinued. Until then we will continue to flounder in assumptions and inconsistencies. It might be worth reiterating too that I support the retention of guards, but the current mess does them no favours.

 

[43074]

Im sure your well aware the ASLEF and RMT pact signed in summer 2015 during the GWR strikes stated that whilst they'd honour exiting deals no more DOO/DCO agreements would be signed under any circumstances anywhere, so Wilkos daft speech (Feb 2016) was irrelevant, the unions battle was planned long before it and would have taken place regardless

Hardly, it demonstrated the government were prepared to battle with the unions, indeed the first party to give any indication of a 'battle' was Wilkinson who said he was prepared to 'break the unions' rather than vice versa... the unions merely said they together would oppose DOO at all costs. The forthcoming Northern dispute will be very interesting indeed as there is no DOO(P) whatsoever up here.

 

[RichardKing]

I see you don’t have the slightest clue and have not read any of the arguments on this thread if you are on yet again about “closing doors”. I am a driver, not a guard. Who physically presses the door close button itself is somewhat of an irrelevence. There are trains where the guard is in control of all functions – the voyager classes 220 / 221 or Southern 377s when operated by the guard from a read / intermediate driving cab, but where the driver actually pressses the physical buttons, as directed by the guard. It is called informally the “ten bell system”.

It is who is responsible for the procedure of dispatching the train from the platform, which is a safety critical task, which if done improperly can in the worst case lead to death, as in the Chris McGhee case. As a driver I do not want to take on this responsibility on top of all of my other responsibilities. Why? We are continutally told that the Platform Train Interface is the most dangerous part of the railway. We are told repeatedly by management that if we make any screw ups we face anything from being on a CDP (Competence Development Plan – which is the first step to demotion / dismissal) to demotion, dismissal and finally prosecution and imprisonment, depending on what happens. The days of being dressed down and a slap on the wrist, but no further action being taken are long gone. As a driver there is enough to worry about, without putting train dispatch issues or dealing with the public directly on our remit as well.

As a driver I do not have direct communication with the passengers on the platform, where as a guard stood on the platform, or station staff do – which is essential when warning late runners / monitoring drunks and all the other behaviour which puts certain types of passengers at risk of injury / death by their own actions. A guard / station staff on modern traction have the ability to position themselves as they see fit on the platform to deal with these issues.

The default position the RSSB wants is DOO self dispatch via CCTV – no guard, no platform staff. The RSSB themselves admit that there is a greater risk of incidents with this system – including, drivers not noticing issues on CCTV to passing signals at danger. The Rail Accident and Investigation Board reports have shown that the bulk of dispatch incidents investigated by them have happened using DOO self dispatch via CCTV, on both mainline railways and the tube.

The CCTV gives one fixed view of the platform, no field of vision, no way to communicate with those on the platform engaging in potentially dangerous / criminal behaviour, is subject to light pollution, snow pollution, rain pollution, appears to be time delayed and has blind spots.

Now we are continually told by managers about distraction issues, both in the cab and at stations. We are told that everything from the signalman calling, a route learner travelling in the front, to the platform dispatcher talking to you, is a risk of distraction. These are safety critical professional rail staff, who will be trained in the risks and be in a sober and sensible state. So when we are told we are supposed to take our eyes off the signal, and start worrying about the behaviour of passengers on platforms, then alarm bells start to ring. I am in no doubt as a passenger you enter and exit the train properly, stand behind the yellow line and so on. You are in the 99%. Unfortunately there is a 1% which do not for whatever reason, and this 1% can be anything from an annoyance to a serious risk to personal safety for the driver. That is an absolutely massive distraction.

So as a driver I am taking on this liability on top of my other duties. You continually go on about how as a driver I am not qualified to talk about rail safety at all, and yet it is myself who will feel the wrath if I make a genuine error. And I am only talking about dispatch issues (or closing the doors as you put it). I haven’t yet begun to touch on dealing with passcoms, anti social behaviour, train evacuation and whatnot - being the person who solely has to deal with it, on top of everything else. Myself and my colleagues are qualified to comment on such issues and raise them as I see fit, whether you or anyone else like that or not. We are the ones that have to deal with the decisions made, and face the consequences. And like it or not we raise these issues with everything from ASLEF and the RMT, to our managers / CIRAS / MPs and so on. It is our role to report dangerous behaviour and problems with systems in place, as much as you hate the idea that it is and repeatedly claim it isn’t. We are expected to submit reports.

As for the politics they were directed at another poster who continually brings them into the discussion, although my point still stands that if you tell the people they are not qualified or educated enough to have an opinion on any issue that affects their job / life / liberty, then you are likely to get political results of the nature we are seeing. I'm not interested in discussing politics, but many people who support DOO seem to bring it up continually. They seem to think retaining guards on trains is somehow a "far left" position, despite the fact that not only have "New" Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs signed Early Day Motions in parliament wanting to keep guards on trains, but so has a Tory MP and DUP MPs. There are many active ASLEF and RMT members who vote UKIP. The unions themselves supported Brexit (for which there is obviously a strong left wing case, but many of their reasons for it were also those shared by UKIP and the right too). Bob Crow was just as concerned about free movement as Nigel Farage.

As for the RMT going on about “crushing”, perhaps you are not familiar with the statements made by the Department for Transports’s Peter Wilkinson at a public meeting… I suggest you read them.

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/department-transport-says-break-train-drivers/story-28783309-detail/story.html

Finally have a look at what the Association of British Commuters is saying, and their copy of an RSSB report, that the RSSB have tried to suppress, in which they actually admit the increased risk of DOO, despite wanting to push it anyway.

https://abcommuters.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/rssb-report-leaked-for-private-eye-expose-now-we-invite-you-to-pick-it-apart/

I could not have put it better myself. Those members of the public who enjoy slagging off the Conductors because of this dispute should have a read of this! Charlie Horton could also benefit from doing the same...as long as his 'very busy' work schedule allows it, of course.

 

[Carlisle]

Hardly, it demonstrated the government were prepared to battle with the unions, indeed the first party to give any indication of a 'battle' was Wilkinson who said he was prepared to 'break the unions' rather than vice versa... the unions merely said they together would oppose DOO at all costs. The forthcoming Northern dispute will be very interesting indeed as there is no DOO(P) whatsoever up here.

let's accept the simple truth/reality that in summer 2015 the unions signed that agreement fully aware that the consequences especially ASLEFs rather hasty change of direction would.in all likelihood lead to a (possibly bitter lengthy ) battle with the DFT / Govt, It wasnt the Govt/ DFT suddenly deciding at a particular time or date to destroy the rail unions, as some on here appear to want us to believe

 

[OliverS]

This shows that you still don't properly understand the situation; DOO isn't unsafe, it is considered less safe than Driver & Guard in most circumstances.

The relative safety is irrelevant. It is either safe enough for use on the railway or it is not. If it is safe enough then the RMT don't have a "safety case" leg to stand on, and if it is safe enough then the TOC will have to have a guard on every service.

It may be less safe, but that won't stop DOO unless it is sufficiently less safe to be unsafe.

 

[alastair]

The relative safety is irrelevant. It is either safe enough for use on the railway or it is not. If it is safe enough then the RMT don't have a "safety case" leg to stand on, and if it is safe enough then the TOC will have to have a guard on every service.

It may be less safe, but that won't stop DOO unless it is sufficiently less safe to be unsafe.

I think your 3rd "safe enough" needs a "not" in front of it?

 

[AnonymousUser1]

The relative safety is irrelevant. It is either safe enough for use on the railway or it is not. If it is safe enough then the RMT don't have a "safety case" leg to stand on, and if it is safe enough then the TOC will have to have a guard on every service.

It may be less safe, but that won't stop DOO unless it is sufficiently less safe to be unsafe.

and the evidence suggests it is 'safe enough' as the legal position has not changed regardless of any of the potential incidients being cited ...

of course the safest option for passengersto embark and disembark involves paltform edged doors and doors preventing acess to the platform , neither of which will open before the train comes to a halt and the platform access doors / barriers closing to prevent lat ecomers acessing the platform and the train not being alowed to leave unti lthe platform is clear and all doors are closed ...

 

[FordFocus]

One other point that gets raised constantly is personal liability. I do not think there is any chance - despite what middle managers may say, (and again there are plenty who talk rubbish and who also are misinformed) if an employee has performed his job in any industry as instructed and an accident follows he is not going to be prosecuted for any offence unless of course he broke the criminal law as well . The only way a driver or guard should be liable is if they have been negligent in some way or performed some deliberate dereliction for which no good reason exists - eg to avoid greater harm . So I am "Liable" whenever I get in my car, so is everyone else. I would also be liable if I create a situation where employees are forced to perform tasks that endangered themselves or others. We all have duties of care so I don;t buy into the constant defence that innocent train crews are in danger of prosecution for the actions of the TOC. That is not so. There also has to be negligence of some kind. It is clear that any case against an employee doing his job as instructed and obeying the conditions of employment and obeying the the criminal law is not going to last 5 minutes in any court.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-guard-stand-trial-after-10951592

http://www.rmt.org.uk/about/health-...circulars/martin-zee--guard-merseyrail121115/

An incident occurred on Merseyrail where an elderly pensioner fell in the gap between the platform and train interface (PTI) as the doors were closing. From what I hear is she appeared after the hustle alarm was sounding. After she fell, the guard used the short circuiting bar to isolate the third rail and assisted her until medical help arrived.

Merseyrail cleared him through their own internal investigation but the CPS want to prosecute him from a law that dates back to the very early days of the railway. The trial was meant for June this year but has been put back to March 2017.

 

[HH]

The relative safety is irrelevant. It is either safe enough for use on the railway or it is not.

And who decides? If there is 1 (2, 3, 4) death(s) a year, is that OK? If that death is you or yours, is it still OK?

I appears that you want things to be black and white; but actually they're a shade of grey.

 

[OliverS]

And who decides? If there is 1 (2, 3, 4) death(s) a year, is that OK? If that death is you or yours, is it still OK?

I appears that you want things to be black and white; but actually they're a shade of grey.

I believe the safety regulator for the railways is the ORR, and so they decide.

And the number of deaths depends on the cost of saving them. I.e. how much does it cost to save one life. If it costs more than the notional amount the government sets on a life then it isn't worth it. This is never a nice decision to make but it is essential it is made. Risk exists and needs to be managed not eliminated.

As to it being black and white. It is and it isn't. The risk is shades of grey, but there is a line where it becomes unsafe, the line is blurry and moves but if you want to class the two sides of the line as black and white I'm not going to disagree entirely.