What does the rule book tell you to do if your train derails?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion
- Thread starter 387star
- Start date
- Status
What does the rule book tell you to do if your train derails?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
IIRC It's still in the rule book to place clips down in the event of an emergency even if it's an axle counter area but I know what you mean
My previous post meant it as guards placing clips TCB lines but I didn't want us to get hung up over the subject with a long paragraph
I agree, going straight into (a lot of) strikes has merely cost the RMT members a lot of money and turned the public against the unions and their 'militant' members.
RMT need to put out some clear press releases explaining to the public exactly what this action is about instead of leaving it up to FGW and their carefully worded press releases which only give the (possible) positives of getting rid of the Train Managers.
Of course some of these 'positives' are only possible when comparing crew worked, slam door HSTs with DOO IEPs, rather than comparing crew worked IEPs with DOO IEPs which would be much more relevant, but then it's spin which is what matters isn't it.
I can't really see how the public will get onside on this anyway. FGW will spin it out as drivers refusing to open and close doors and I bet the public will see it like that. As we know it's more complicated than that.
Whilst on the subject from the ASLEF side of things, the main group of people that will work these trains are as far as I'm aware are the High Speed drivers who I believe don't have DOO-P in their T&Cs. So negotiations (I believe current harmonisation are in talks for all 3 sets of drivers), if these negotiations fail then they won't open or close doors. They can sign the trains with the agreement of the union accepting them but don't touch the doors thus the TMs will have to carry out door duties as of present because it's not in their conditions of service...
Your welcome BTW ainsworth74
Captain Chaos
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 840
From my own personal experience I've only had one person berate me and that was in a sarcastic manner. Everyone else has either just asked for information or been supportive. I've received far more support from the public than backlash. I've been quite touched. It wasn't what I was ever expecting.
You know what he meant so why the pretend outrage?:roll:
Outrage Bus is ticking over outside for you!
So its outrageous to scorn an opening gambit of disruptive industrial action is it? How about an opening gambit of discussion instead?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
fGW, of course, is really not a popular TOC with its passengers. I wonder if it's genuine support (hopefully it is) or if it's because they just dislike the company so anything against it wins out?
Would it be similar or different, I wonder, were it VT?
Captain Chaos
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 840
You seriously expect ASLEF are simply going to go straight into industrial action without any discussion? In that case they may as well join in now!
But you don't discuss, you put your point of view and that's it, you won't listen to anyone else's viewpoint as you have already made your mind up so discussing it is pointless.
If you mean ASLEF to discuss then obviously they will but it will all depend on FGW discussing it or simply saying 'this is what we are doing, like it or lump it' as they have done with the RMT union.
Last edited:
Rich McLean
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 1,757
I can't really see how the public will get onside on this anyway. FGW will spin it out as drivers refusing to open and close doors and I bet the public will see it like that. As we know it's more complicated than that.
Whilst on the subject from the ASLEF side of things, the main group of people that will work these trains are as far as I'm aware are the High Speed drivers who I believe don't have DOO-P in their T&Cs. So negotiations (I believe current harmonisation are in talks for all 3 sets of drivers), if these negotiations fail then they won't open or close doors. They can sign the trains with the agreement of the union accepting them but don't touch the doors thus the TMs will have to carry out door duties as of present because it's not in their conditions of service...
Your welcome BTW ainsworth74
For the Hamonisation thing, its more about having drivers getting paid according to the traction and routes on which they sign, and how much responsibility they have.
At the moment, Oxford LTV Top Link sign 16x, HST & Class 180, which will soon become Class 800 & Class 387. We are on LTV wages, which is lower than HSS wages (which is currently guard worked).
Bristol HSS for example get paid more than us, but drive driver/guard operated services exclusively for more money.
Then you have Gloucester men on West wages, driving HSTs and HSS men in the south west on HSS wages also driving units.
A change in traction and in some cases routes signed, pay and T&Cs for all 3 sets of drivers needs to change to make it fair. Gone are the days of 3 separate franchises, which is why the rates of pay are so different.
However, there should be cavets for each traction (i.e. door opening) in place
Last edited:
plymothian
Member
And soon there'll also have guards who won't have door duties being paid more than those that do... but let's not even go there.
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Do you not think 'discussions' have been done to the death over the last few months?!
If Aslef don't want DOO, just as the RMT don't want it, it's curious to suggest that somehow this will be magically resolved by yet more discussion, don't you think?
Last edited:
Can I just get a refresh.
Where exactly are FGW going to operate Class 800s and 801s as DOO? Haven't they already moved on this point and stated numerous times that these trains will operate with a safety competent guard on board at all times.
What's the state of play with catering and maintenance? Which had also been lumped into the same dispute.
Where exactly are FGW going to operate Class 800s and 801s as DOO? Haven't they already moved on this point and stated numerous times that these trains will operate with a safety competent guard on board at all times.
What's the state of play with catering and maintenance? Which had also been lumped into the same dispute.
Last edited:
Rich McLean
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 1,757
It's more of a case of wanting to keep the Guard/TM carrying out dispatch duties and having full control of the doors. Also, many union members want the the ability for the driver to operate the train in DOO/DCO mode to be removed, so that future franchises cannot implement DOO-P via the back door
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,491
Even if they do that it'll probably be only by blanking off the relevant panels and/or switches, all the wiring and internals will still be there allowing any future franchise to put it back in, and if the dft were to specify DOO as part of the next franchise, would any future TOC have any choice about implementing DOO or not?
They would be hard pressed if the staff and unions don't agree though!
The DaFT can try anything they like but it doesn't mean it will happen!
What is at stake here is managements right to manage. We cannot return to the 1970s where the unions resisted almost every change that was seen as a threat to some outdated practice. By all means negotiate a deal that may involve increased pay and/or no redundancies, but technology moves on whether the unions like it or not.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,275
In this franchise. There is absolutely the square root of diddly squat that means that a future franchise has to keep guards. This is what this is all about.
Captain Chaos
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 840
Doesn't DOO stand for Driver Only Operation? Meaning the train is being operated by only the driver? The TM has no input into its actual operation. There presence is irrelevant. The train itself is still being operated solely by the driver. So it is still DOO, isn't it? There has been zero movement on this issue. For as long as the driver is operating fully the doors and the TM has no input at all its still a DOO service.
There's also a world of difference between safety competent and safety critical. Being competent is fine. But you're still no longer critical to the operation.
They can always seek to employ those that would agree though. And those that don't agree will be sent packing with their P45's (don't dismiss this - the Tories are in power and are not exactly friendly to unions!)
Last edited:
the sniper
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 3,498
Ah right. That's what it's all about is it? So the RMT are taking action against the current franchisee to prevent changes being made by a future franchisee. Exactly how can GWR make concessions for a future unknown variable?
If that really is what the dispute is about then there's no hope for the RMT belligerents.
Can't see how returning to 1970s trade union attitudes will do any long term good for the railway or those who work on it
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with outdated practices and everything to do with operating the railways as safely as we do now.
The drivers (most if us anyway) don't want increased pay for increased responsibility, we want the safest way ofvworking and that is the driver driving and the guard guarding, just like it is now.
I am all for improvements as long as they are that, improvements, and increasing the drivers workload at the highest workload part of the job (working to a different DOO method than any other DOO train) is not seen as the safest or most sensible way of working especially as they haven't even looked at the drivers workload and the possibility of any problems this could cause, why do you think they haven't done this if they thought the results would be in their favour?
In my opinion, these proposals are based on nothing more than ideology and do not offer any improvements over what we have now at all.
LateThanNever
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 1,029
What a very good point.
So does the idea of driver only gain traction - as it were - because Padd to Reading is fairly densely populated and intensively worked, so a guard is not safety critical because there is so much help easily available?
In this context I wonder if the Ladbroke Grove disaster has taught any lessons?
I will assume you are young with very little experience in employment law, the only other alternative is that you are a Troll trying to get the staff to bite.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
How is any of this the fault of the unions?
It's FGW (doing the government's dirty work) who are responsible for all this, ffs even East Coast (who are getting exactly the same trains) are sticking with the safest method of operation!
The Javelin services have all been operating in the proposed way perfectly well , all with on board managers for about 6 years
Ladbroke Grove was a very long time ago (in government terms), lessons were learned but people tend to forget things very quickly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Those on board managers are actually drivers and so are trained in all safety critical items, the proposals with these IEPs are not offering the same method of operation.
Edit-
This bit is wrong, please ignore.
Last edited:
I think this comes back to something we were talking about a week or two ago. The Unions seems to be failing, badly, at getting any sort of message across that can elicit significant public sympathy.
I can't understand why they aren't shouting from the rooftops that the ECML and GWML are getting exactly the same trains. Leading on to asking why, on the GWML, is it a case of bringing in 'modern working practices' yet on the ECML not even a whisper of bringing in these 'modern working practices'? What is different about the ECML that means it needs buffets yet the GWML doesnt? Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen the RMT mentioning anything like that.
Equally why aren't they saying anything (or at least hinting) at FGW possibly introducing unsafe working by having 'guards' who have had a couple of hours training working trains which would usually have a guard with weeks and weeks of training covering during strike days?
I know someone people say that public support doesn't matter but I can't help but feel that realistically at the end of the day it does count for something and the Unions are failing, miserably, in terms of public relations. Meanwhile FGW are in complete and utter control of story of this dispute and making the Unions, unfairly, look like 1970s throwbacks.
- Status