Southern's Timetable Reduction

[royaloak]

as Southern have committed themselves to keeping a second member of staff on board the train (who retains their emergency / trackside training, elect) 

Have they?

Show me where it states that!

[royaloak]

One person is assigned additional responsibilities and a little extra work, hopefully in return for a little more pay.  The "efficiency" is that this eliminates another job and allegedly saves money for the employer.  

 

Exactly.  So why is this person no longer to be allowed to do what they have been trained for namely operating the doors, two dings of the bell and supervising departures?  I too have few issues with DOO other than the potential for it to create delays as I mentioned.  What I object to is the seemingly unnecessary change when two staff will still be aboard the train.  And if there are insufficient staff the train will still not run whether it is a driver, guard, OBS, signaller or office tea-maker who is missing.

Southern have not stated that an OBS will be on every train though have they?

What they have stated is that an OBS will be diagrammed to every train, if that person isnt available for any reason then the train runs without them, when pushed about the 'diagrammed bit' they wouldnt answer the question.

 

Edit-

I assume all the DOO lovers wont be the ones sat in the front of the train trying to see if its safe to dispatch the train using the tiny pictures on the screen knowing that if they get it wrong they will be the ones stood in front of the man in the funny wig explaining their actions, I on the other hand will be!

[Claude_Dreyfus]

 

Have they?

Show me where it states that!

Here.

 

http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/gtr-sets-rmt-deadline-to-end-dispute/

 

The catch is that there could be exceptions where a member of staff is unavailable.

[royaloak]

Here.

 

http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/gtr-sets-rmt-deadline-to-end-dispute/

 

The catch is that there could be exceptions where a member of staff is unavailable.

So there are exceptions which means the second person is not going to be on every train doesnt it!

 

Can anyone state categorically exactly what these exceptions are please, because I read it that its any time an OBS isnt available for any reason!

[cromptonnut]

... and as time goes on the list of exceptions will increase to the point where there are more reasons not to, than to have, an OBS and thus the role becomes obsolete.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

So there are exceptions which means the second person is not going to be on every train doesnt it!

 

Can anyone state categorically exactly what these exceptions are please, because I read it that its any time an OBS isnt available for any reason!

Read point 3. Something still to be agreed with the Union.

 

I'm afraid you won't get any better than this.

[jonathan452]

Pity any Brighton Line Southern passengers trying to use Thameslink as an alternative today-:

 

18:35 Brighton (East Sussex) to Bedford

Thameslink

This train has been cancelled because of a shortage of train drivers

 

 

18:42 London Bridge to Brighton (East Sussex)

Thameslink

This train has been cancelled because of a shortage of train drivers

[phil-b259]

Have they?

Show me where it states that!

 

How about here http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/strike/

 

And here http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/southern-reveals-8-point-offer-to-settle-strike-and-urges-fresh-talks-with-rmt/

 

And here http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/rmt-strike-action/

 

So please don't try and pretend that Southern are planning to remove on board staff en mass nor massively undermine their T&Cs etc when its quite clear they have no intention of doing so.

 

What Southern - or ANY franchised TOC cannot do do is offer any guarantees on what may happen when the franchise ends as this will depend on the terms the DfT may draw up when letting the next franchise*.

BR was able to make certain promises about future changes which the franchised railway never can, precisely because it was not subject to the tendering process where the Government can change everything with each new franchise.

 

Thus I reiterate my point - this dispute is not about DOO (which has been PROVEN by the virtue of 35 years experience to be a perfectly safe mode of operation) and people need to wake up to the real issue here. Namely the ability of the Guards to bring the franchise to a halt in the event of a franchisee / the DfT to try and implement McNulty** with respect to staff wages / pension arrangements / T&Cs. This ability being something I and many other rail workers have benefited from in the past and I would naturally not want to see changed without a fight - just lets be honest about why action is being taken rather than being taken in by lies and propaganda.

 

(yes strange as it may seem to some - I do actually think strike action has a place when all other avenues fail)

 

*Indeed industry sources are already saying that the DfT is minded to split the TSGN franchise up next time into more manageable chunks - which might see Thameslink -  A fully DOO railway with no Guards / OBS / second person on board at all forming one franchise and Southern (- minus its London suburban operations but still including Gatwick Express) operating with Guards / OBS staff most of the time. Given the Government could subsequently decide to make Southern ditch their guards / OBSs as part of the new franchise  then quite clearly the current management are powerless to give the guarantees the union or others seem to want.

 

**In effect McNulty said rail workers were overpaid, had been given too many above inflation pay rises in recent years without any serious productivity increases to match and needed to be bought into line with 'modern' employment practices - by which he meant short term contracts, poor job security, increased competition, the break up of NR, more outsourcing and all the other things a certain party say are 'good for business' but strangely have the opposite effect on the workforce.

[Gwiwer]

Some interesting reading here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmtrans/64/6406.htm#_idTextAnchor013

 

Selected quotes (bold is carried foward from the original article):

 

 

The effects on Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern’s (TSGN) passengers of the major infrastructure works entailed inthe Thameslink Programme, particularly the redevelopment of London Bridge station, were very substantially underestimated.

The number of additional “delay minutes” as a consequence of the works was forecast to be 10,000 per year; the actual effect was 10,000 additional delay minutes per week

 

At the commencement of the current franchise agreement, GTR immediately found that it did not have enough staff to run services as planned. This exacerbated the level of disruption, with many planned services delayed or cancelled because of train crew shortages. Initially, a shortage of drivers was particularly problematic. Charles Horton told us that, “At the start of the franchise, we had fewer drivers than we anticipated based on the evidence that we had in the data

 

 

We welcome the Department’s acknowledgement that, in hindsight, it was a mistake to amalgamate four existing railwaybrands into one huge, diverse and highly complex rail franchise delivered via a single operator, on a part of the network undergoing very substantial infrastructure works.

 

We are concerned that no official impact assessment has been made of the potential effects of DOO on disabled people’s access to the railway. We recommend the DfT and the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) jointly commission research into the potential effects of DOO on the “turn up and go” accessibility of the railway to disabled people who require assistance getting on and off trains. The Department should draw on this research to issue guidance to train operating companies on the measures that should be taken to mitigate potential detrimental effects on disabled people’s access. It should ensure that actions are taken to guarantee that disabled rail passengers receive the support to which they are entitled. The research should be conducted, and guidance published, before summer 2017.

 

 

The then Minister, Claire Perry MP, acknowledged on 11 July that GTR’s approach to industrial relations had been “poor”. - the latter more specifically in the many paragraphs related to Southern's woes and industrial troubles.

[cromptonnut]

Very interesting indeed and something many of us staff have been aware of for a long time.

 

It's great that this information is starting to get out into the public domain and the general travelling public will start to see that many (not all) of the problems are down to the franchise itself and the management thereof, and not the front-line staff who are trying to do their best to keep things going.

[wombatofludham]

So Parliament is concerned about the affect of DOO on the turn up and go ability for dsabled passengers to access the same railway able bodied people take for granted and is concerned that the DfT and ATOC have made no attempts to asses the impact of DOO on theior responsibilites under the Equality Act.

 

Does that mean that MPs are completely wrong and that they should be expecting passengers to jump out of their seats to physically manhandle - sorry ​assist - a person in a wheelchair onto a train? 

[phil-b259]

Does that mean that MPs are completely wrong and that they should be expecting passengers to jump out of their seats to physically manhandle - sorry ​assist - a person in a wheelchair onto a train? 

 

No - it means that the DfT have totally ignored the issue - the cynic might say precisely because it causes serious problems with implementing McNulty, which wants less, not more railway staff on the front line.

 

Also, its all very well saying ATOC haven't addressed the issue, but that rather ignores how they are actually pretty constrained in their options by the franchise agreements - which are drawn up by the DfT.....

[bescotbeast]

So Parliament is concerned about the affect of DOO on the turn up and go ability for dsabled passengers to access the same railway able bodied people take for granted and is concerned that the DfT and ATOC have made no attempts to asses the impact of DOO on theior responsibilites under the Equality Act.

 

Does that mean that MPs are completely wrong and that they should be expecting passengers to jump out of their seats to physically manhandle - sorry ​assist - a person in a wheelchair onto a train? 

Conductors and Drivers that I've spoke to warned of this, the whole point of OBS is the train can run without one on board, so if that role is uncovered who will get the disabled person on and off the train? What GTR want, is for people with access issues to pre-book their journey before travelling. 

[phil-b259]

Conductors and Drivers that I've spoke to warned of this, the whole point of OBS is the train can run without one on board, so if that role is uncovered who will get the disabled person on and off the train? What GTR want, is for people with access issues to pre-book their journey before travelling. 

 

Which is precisely what MPs are concerned about.

 

However, as we have already established the DfT want DOO - so its no good complaining to GTR as they are hardly an isolated case (for example what about GWR or Thameslink who never have a second person on board as opposed to Southern who have committed to try and do so most of the time). The people you need to speak to are the inhabitants of Whitehall who are busy implementing McNulty and who have done a remarkably good job of ignoring the issue of disabled assistance for decades.

 

And the Labour Party / RMT think that giving the DfT total control via nationalisation is a good idea......

[Gwiwer]

Conductors and Drivers that I've spoke to warned of this, the whole point of OBS is the train can run without one on board, so if that role is uncovered who will get the disabled person on and off the train? What GTR want, is for people with access issues to pre-book their journey before travelling. 

 

Another question arises.  If a wheelchair user boards with the assistance of a guard, let's say at Lewes where the train is still two-manned in the traditional manner, but there is no OBS available beyond Haywards Heath and the train continues in DOO mode as GTR and DfT intend then who is to assist the wheelchair passenger off at Gatwick Airport?  Would they even be aware that the guard was no longer on the train?

 

Pre-booking assistance flies in the face of the turn-up-and-go concept of rail for all on an equal basis.  I realise that a few users are required to pre-book such as cyclists (on some TOCs / at some times of day / over some routes) and those few trains where reservation is compulsory (sleepers as an example) but even then a reservation can be made at the last minute and theoretically even once the train is in motion subject to space being available.  One cannot arrive at an unattended station in a wheelchair and hope to book assistance in boarding a train maybe an hour away - there is not enough time to arrange the assistance.  

 

The bigger picture is emerging of a railway which will continue to accept all passengers, makes expensive provision for them by law on board trains and to access trains yet seems to expect they will know a day or two beforehand that they wish to travel, will make a phone call (and hopefully not be placed in a call queue despite being asked to  "Please hold - your call is important to us" being played every few seconds), will be able to communicate their needs and receive assurance that the arrangements will be put in place.

 

Is this the way we wish to go?  Is this fair and equitable treatment?  What if you had an accident or developed a medical condition which rendered you unable to walk normally?  How strongly would you feel about the removal of on-board staff, station staff and what are fundamentally essential services?

[bescotbeast]

... and as time goes on the list of exceptions will increase to the point where there are more reasons not to, than to have, an OBS and thus the role becomes obsolete.

it's the old "thin end of the wedge" addedge, the OBS role is not safety critical and won't hold a PTS and the train can run without the OBS..... 

[wombatofludham]

Here's an idea: Given MPs have raised concerns that the DfT seemingly have not addressed the issue of disabled access compliant with the requirements of the Equality Act under their mandated DOO implementation in the Southern management contract, perhaps the RMT might like to speed-dial their barristers to mount a legal challenge.  Clearly the DfT, an arm of the Government, is breaching the Government's own Equality Act if it is instructing a service provider to operate in a manner that means that persons with disabilities are not afforded an equal level of service availability as an able bodied passenger.  Being forced to book assistance 24 hours in advance of their journey clearly is not an equivalent level of service.

​It would make for an interesting case and wouldn't be the first time one arm of the Government had been found to be in breach of legislation.

[david.hill64]

 

Some interesting reading here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmtrans/64/6406.htm#_idTextAnchor013

 

 

 

A really good find - one more piece of evidence in the case against DaFT.

 

The disabled access issue is going to become critical. I recall a comment by a learned colleague of mine that one of the things that killed BR finances was its role as a common carrier with an obligation to transfer goods from anywhere to anywhere for a certain price whatever the cost. Not for one moment wishing to equate disabled persons with sacks of potatoes, there is a parallel here. If the requirement to transport the disabled on the same terms as an able bodied passenger is enforced at all locations the costs of doing so may make the provision of the general services disastrously uneconomic. As the 'Good Doctor' was reported to have remarked, rather than use a train to carry people on some lightly used lines it would have been cheaper to provide a chauffeur driven Rolls. We have also seen rolling stock costs driven up by the need to provide disabled access loos in every class of vehicle with the subsequent loss of seating capacity. For the avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting for one moment that this is a bad thing.

 

What I am saying is that some lateral thinking is going to be required to resolve the problem. It may be that staffing up at all stations or on all trains as appropriate is the answer. We know that staff costs are about 30% of TOC operating costs

 

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/4933/toc-benchmarking-report-2012.pdf

 

How many more staff would be required? I don't know but to provide 24/7 cover it cannot be less than 10% more. 20% may be a better guess.

 

A 10% increase in costs would wipe out the TOC's profit (assuming 3% margin), so nobody would bid for a franchise without either direct government support or fare increases. If the increase in costs is 20% then you are going to need a 6% fare increase just to stand still and those costs are locked into the industry: disastrous in an economic downturn.

 

The alternative is subsidy, but with the country already running a huge deficit where will it come from?

 

I don't have any answer, but I foresee an interesting debate: not just within these illustrious pages!

[cromptonnut]

A big timetable shake-up is really what's needed to address where capacity is and isn't required, and something the GTR 2018 timetable consultation is supposed to address - but part of the problem I think is that too many people have too much sense of entitlement and expect half empty, 12 car trains every five minutes in the direction of their journey to their destination where they can get a seat, and stuff the rest of the network and everywhere and everyone else who may be wanting to travel at that time.

 

They also want the fastest journey possible, so people at the small intermediate stations can go whistle as another train thunders past non-stop whilst they wait for their hourly service to stop, and during times of disruption there seems to be little consideration for extra stops or diversions to stop after three trains in a row have been cancelled at that station.

 

There is also a major lack of understanding of how trains work, and that there aren't spare trains or staff just hanging around waiting to be used, so it's not possible to do more.  Trains sitting in a depot may be awaiting their use a little later, or in for maintenance, or whatever and can't just be started up and driven at 5 minutes notice, particularly when it might take 20 minutes to get the train from depot to "here" assuming that there is crew available too.

 

When selling tickets, whenever I get an awkward passenger having a moan about something that is not even my fault, about 90% of the time I can guess exactly where their journey starts or ends. 

 

We need a complete culture shift, predominantly in commuters, where turning up in good time rather than at the last minute, and accepting that 35 minutes rather than 30 minutes is perfectly acceptable, and that few extra minutes in the journey could actually give them a more reliable service.

[Fenman]

Another question arises. If a wheelchair user boards with the assistance of a guard, let's say at Lewes where the train is still two-manned in the traditional manner, but there is no OBS available beyond Haywards Heath and the train continues in DOO mode as GTR and DfT intend then who is to assist the wheelchair passenger off at Gatwick Airport? Would they even be aware that the guard was no longer on the train?

 

Pre-booking assistance flies in the face of the turn-up-and-go concept of rail for all on an equal basis. I realise that a few users are required to pre-book such as cyclists (on some TOCs / at some times of day / over some routes) and those few trains where reservation is compulsory (sleepers as an example) but even then a reservation can be made at the last minute and theoretically even once the train is in motion subject to space being available. One cannot arrive at an unattended station in a wheelchair and hope to book assistance in boarding a train maybe an hour away - there is not enough time to arrange the assistance.

 

The bigger picture is emerging of a railway which will continue to accept all passengers, makes expensive provision for them by law on board trains and to access trains yet seems to expect they will know a day or two beforehand that they wish to travel, will make a phone call (and hopefully not be placed in a call queue despite being asked to "Please hold - your call is important to us" being played every few seconds), will be able to communicate their needs and receive assurance that the arrangements will be put in place.

 

Is this the way we wish to go? Is this fair and equitable treatment? What if you had an accident or developed a medical condition which rendered you unable to walk normally? How strongly would you feel about the removal of on-board staff, station staff and what are fundamentally essential services?

Be careful what you wish for: the easiest and cheapest way of dealing with this issue is simply to close all unstaffed stations. Hey presto: no guards needed, and people in wheelchairs get a turn-up-and-go service on exactly the same terms as everyone else.

 

But, once again, these hypotheticals feel like crutch-waving. What has happened to people with mobility issues at those unstaffed stations where DOO has already been in operation for decades?

 

Paul

[Gwiwer]

Among the optional and less-than-daily travellers I can agree that the post above is fair comment.  These are also people who might require a seat for one reason or another, be able and willing to offer flexibility on journey times and may also trade the ideal journey for a cheaper fare at a different time.  These people are also critical to win and maintain onside for the future success of the railway - they have choices and are not afraid to exercise them and express their opinions.

 

Daily commuters, while I don't deny the "sense of entitlement" attitude exists, by and large do have a decent understanding of how the railway works insofar as it matters to them.  They have less choice over their journey, make the same journey typically ten times a week (five up, five down) and are well aware of the day-to-day issues which might affect those travels be it a signal which fails regularly or a train which is cancelled more often than most.  Pricing to shift the peak load hasn't really worked because the sheer volume of traffic now handled on the key Southern routes means the "peak" is almost all day.  Count the empty seats on a mid-morning Brighton - VIctoria fast or a mid-evening Victoria - Littlehampton / Eastbourne for example.  Few if any.  And often with standing north of Gatwick which might well be eliminated if GatEx didn't charge the premium fares they do.

 

What we have is a railway operating in excess of capacity most of the time.  More trains are timetabled than the signalling was intended to cope with.  More people are travelling than at any time in history.  And there is no way to increase capacity in a meaningful manner least of all when it is needed most.  It cannot easily be smoothed either.  I have discussed before the uneven splits on the Sussex coast trains leaving an overloaded 4-car portion for Littlehampton when there is often more space on the 8-car Eastbourne portion.  Those too are sometimes 4-car and overcrowded but the network allows 12-car trains.  There is no option to run two 6-car portions however desirable that might be.  Back in the 1930s the SR got it right.  6-car units coupled in pairs.  Now we have a fleet of mostly 4-car units.  The previous generation was also 4-car units but when they were specified and delivered the coastal trains were hourly east and west with no splits; 12 ran London - Worthing or Eastbourne with 8 to Littlehampton or 4 to Hastings more closely matching demand at the outer ends.  

 

Brighton fasts are often 8-car yet could again be 12-car if rolling stock were available.  Many users still prefer the Southern fasts to the GatEx ones; the journey time differs by only 3 - 4 minutes, Southern seats are more comfortable and sometimes you can get a ticket for as little as £5.

 

More use could and should be made of those few alternative routes available.  Why, for example, do the Portsmouth / Southampton - Victoria trains not use the Dorking route north of Horsham?  I hear the argument about serving Gatwick but some stations already have alternative direct services and if it really mattered cross-platform interchange at Horsham is not beyond the bounds of possibility.  Bognor - Victoria semi-fasts (those which serve all stations through the Arun Valley) would still run via Gatwick instead of being a portion attached / detached at Horsham.    

 

It is time bullets were bitten.  Damage has been done and is being done to the former South Central area of the erstwhile Southern Region.  The 2018 timetable consultation questions offer little in the way of creative thinking.  Ashford - Brighton trains should be confined to the section eastwards of Eastbourne; Hastings would be ideal but Eastbourne offers guaranteed level interchange with electrics to Brighton and London.  Southern needs to look at the 313 operations and find a way to replace them on longer runs while possibly looking at 6-car operation over the busier stretches closer to Brighton.  They are not suited to an all-stations Portsmouth or Hastings service on a route known for its significant population of older folk many of whom value the reassurance that a lavatory is available if needed.  They were "sold" to locals as being brought in (to replace the 377/3s) on Brighton - West Worthing and Seaford locals ONLY.  

 

I acknowledge the differing viewpoints and experience of staff, passengers and industry professionals which have been expressed in this topic.  What is needed is action more than words.  What we are getting from those who could make changes is hot air and male bovine excreta.  The wind of change needs to blow fierce and fast.  And without costing jobs.

[Fenman]

... We need a complete culture shift, predominantly in commuters ...

So, we now have the wrong type of passengers?

 

Paul

[Gwiwer]

 

 

 What has happened to people with mobility issues at those unstaffed stations where DOO has already been in operation for decades?

In two cases I know of the people concerned no longer travel by rail.  It became too difficult and unreliable booking assistance at least 24 hours in advance.  In one other case known to me an ambulant person who cannot manage large steps is obliged to ask the driver for help with the ramp.  Sometimes that is given; sometimes the driver ignores them, closes the doors and goes.

[Fenman]

... Why, for example, do the Portsmouth / Southampton - Victoria trains not use the Dorking route north of Horsham? I hear the argument about serving Gatwick ....

Because the whole point of these trains - the only reason they run - is to provide direct access from Southampton and the south coast to Gatwick. The last time I was at Southampton Central the departure boards didn't even show these trains reaching London: they were advertised as direct services to Gatwick Airport.

 

Not everyone in the whole country wants to go to London. Though I appreciate that many of the changes over the last few decades have been designed to provide a better service for London commuters at the expense of longer-distance travel (how many non-stop London-Southampton express trains can you find in the current timetable? Compared to the last days of BR? What's the fastest journey speed? Now compare it to BR, which managed 15% faster. Every hour).

 

Paul

[Fenman]

In two cases I know of the people concerned no longer travel by rail. It became too difficult and unreliable booking assistance at least 24 hours in advance. In one other case known to me an ambulant person who cannot manage large steps is obliged to ask the driver for help with the ramp. Sometimes that is given; sometimes the driver ignores them, closes the doors and goes.

Boorish behaviour by staff is never acceptable. And abandoning someone with mobility problems is obviously appalling. Your personal anecdotes sound dreadful. But I'd still rather see proper research.

 

My Great Northern train yesterday had the wheelchair toilet out of service. The other toilet worked. Presumably, hardliners would argue that the entire unit should have immediately been taken out of service because it was discriminating against wheelchair users. Everyone on the train should have been dumped at the first station, to wait an hour for the next service (where equal provision was available), while the then-empty unit should have been driven straight to the depot? Or should the functioning non-accessible toilet immediately have been locked, to ensure an equally miserable journey for all? Would it make any difference if there were no wheelchair users on the train with a broken toilet?

 

Equality is a fine and hugely desirable principle. But the law is also very clear that an equally important principle is "reasonableness". What is "reasonable" should be determined in each case in the light of circumstances.

 

An example: my previous employers were threatened with fines by the local authority for failing to install a wheelchair ramp to our Grade 1 listed building; and were threatened with fines by English Heritage if we *did* install such a ramp. How do you balance both of those desirable objectives?

 

Paul