Southern Rail Franchise

[phil-b259]

So, the RAIB are part of the conspiracy are they? If, as you put it:-

 

....  on any sane reading suggest that it probably would not have happened under guard dispatch

 

then why does the RAIB completely ingore the point.

 

Sorry, the RAIB* are the ones who investigate incidents - not your or I and unless they feel a particular factor is worthy of comment then any private opinions are irrelevant when discussing incidents.

 

*Or the HMRI before them.

[phil-b259]

Ah so you are another one who knows whats best for us, and yes I am a train driver hence why I have an understanding about the PTI and what happens when it goes wrong and having no interest in having to stand in front of the (wo)man in the funny wig and having to answer the question-

 

"Now then Mr Traindriver can you please explain to the Court why you considered it safe to dispatch your train when it obviously wasnt otherwise little Timothy wouldnt have fallen down the gap and lost his legs".

 

If you think that is far fetched ask the MerseyRail Guard who is currently awaiting trial before some old dear fell down the gap and the train never even moved!

 

 

So you dont have the pleasure of dealing with the great British public then!

Stationmasters knowledge and understanding comes from a time before guards and drivers were routinely prosecuted for other peoples mistakes.

 

Thank you for clarifying things and providing grater clarity as to what you feel to be the nub of the issue here - the threat of prosecution. You would like to think that If the correct mitigation methods (whatever they may be for said location) are in place and all staff do what is expected of them (as detailed in the RAIB investigation) then prosecution should never be attempted - and CPS need to be told that in no uncertain terms by the court.

 

I rue the day the country decided it needed to go down the American legal route of 'where there is blame there is a claim' precisely because of the way such an ethos inevitably has spread into more serious things than whiplash claims.

 

I totally understand your desire not to be the guy standing in front of the people with the funny wigs, but if I may say so, is it not the case that having a Guard simply shifts the onus onto them? In other words while you may escape being in the dock - your Guard (as in the MerseyRail case) may not be so fortunate.

 

As a Driver are you a member of ASLEF? if so then you are naturally privy to the specifics of the deal and are obviously perfectly within you rights to criticise your own union. If you are one of the 12 (IIRC) drivers that are members of the RMT then I can understand your anger at effectively being excluded from the negotiations - though what ASLEF does is of course a matter for them and their members.

[Guest]

PS it would also be helpful to try and use the proper quote format when including other peoples posts as its quite hard to follow what is going on when you simply include random chunks of other peoples posts within your texts

 

I don’t see how that works when you are commenting on multiple issues – it seems to me reasonably clear and logical – they are not "random chunks" but in the order as posted. I am sorry if you find it hard to follow.

 

Use MultiQuote if responding to more than one user. If you think your reply formatting is reasonably clear and logical, I'm afraid you're wrong... your replies are virtually impossible to follow.

[Gwiwer]

If the "nub of the issue" is the threat of prosecution then the problem is the general shift to a litigious society where "no win no fee" lawyers seem to be calling the shots.

 

The general public, individually and severally, must take responsibility for their actions and not attempt to shift the blame - if indeed there is blame at all - to another party and certainly not through the courtroom.  At least the British justice system still operates on the basis of "What would a reasonable person do?"

 

Without prejudice to any matter currently before the courts it ought to be considered reasonable that a person stand back from closing (or closed) doors and from a moving train.  It might be considered reasonable that a person wishing to catch a train arrived on the platform in due time and not as it was leaving.  It should be considered unreasonable to attempt to halt the door closing cycle by projecting a body part or personal possession into the doorway.  

 

On the other side is should be considered reasonable that a driver who has carried out their duties under DOO(P) as regards observations and door-closing should be able to start the train without fear of prosecution.  It is unreasonable to expect a driver to be both looking forward to check the signals and road ahead and backward via a CCTV or mirror, or even (if other means are inadequate) physically looking back down the platform from an open window.  

 

In days not long gone it would be considered unreasonable for a late-coming passenger to attempt boarding by opening a door once the train was in motion yet many tried it. Some boarded, some didn't, some were injured and a very few never lived to try again.  The guard then, and often as not the driver now, can only attempt to mitigate the event by stopping the train.  

 

I am no fan of what is termed "ambulance-chasers".  Take responsibility for your actions and don't come back with a claim if you do something unreasonable or plain stupid and suffer consequences.  I will guarantee that among rail staff at least 99% do the right thing at least 99% of the time.  And probably closer to 100% in an industry that places safety first and has an enviable reputation around the world for its safety record.

 

None of that makes DOO(P) any more nor less safe.  Statistically that have been demonstrated to have a safe record when suitably implemented.  Its implementation may not be the most appropriate solution to the accountant's problems in every case however.  

[jjb1970]

I get as irritated by vexatious claims as anybody and clearly there are nuisance claims which do little for anybody other than to provide income for lawyers. That should not however lead people to dismiss the right of people to seek redress via legal channels when they have been the victim of an injustice or suffered loss or injury as a result of the negligence or actions of others. Responsibility is a two way thing, yes of course individuals have a responsibility to take reasonable care for both their own safety and the safety of others but that is a two way thing. Companies and their employees also have a responsibility for the safety of others (whether those are customers or people with no connection with the company who may be affected by what the company does) and a legal duty of care. For every vexatious legal case there is also a case (and usually an awful lot more cases) where people have received compensation for losses caused by negligent, incompetent or malicious actions (or inactions). As somebody who has looked at a lot of rather gruesome imagery of mangled and burned bodies and investigated the sometimes appalling actions and inactions of companies and their employees I think it is too easy to point to the perceived litigation culture and dismiss the law as an ass. Without the threat of legal sanctions we would live in a far less safe and clean world than we do, regulations and laws need the threat of legal sanctions if individuals and corporations do not comply if they are to be effective. Yes, most individuals and corporations self-police and comply with their legal responsibilities because it is the right thing to do (and the system would break down if that wasn’t the case) but enough don’t to make lawyers and the courts necessary. I’m guessing that if anybody here had a loved one who was injured or killed in a public transport incident then they would expect the cause of the incident to be investigated and if the transport operator had been negligent or failed to discharge their duty of care then they would expect them to face legal consequences.

[Gwiwer]

While I agree with the general sentiments expressed above I hope I do not come across as calling the law an ass myself.   If injury or death has been caused then it must be investigated.  But the cause may be recorded as misadventure which effectively means an accident and with no liability on the part of the company, respondent or whoever.  

 

To amplify that perhaps consider a (theoretical) instance where a person has run onto the platform to see their train about to depart and the doors closing.  Whether or not it is DOO(P), operated by Southern or not we assume for now that station and on-board staff have carried out their duties correctly and the train is being despatched.  The runner then thrusts an umbrella or newspaper into the closing doorway hoping to have the doors re-open but instead finds themselves being dragged along the platform clutching at the item which is trapped in the doors.  Who is liable for the injuries they sustain - possibly fatal - arising from an act of perhaps impulsive thought or wanton impatience?  Unless fault is found with train or staff then no-one but the runner themselves.  

 

What if someone on a platform chooses to stand at the approach ramp, which might be adjacent to a dark spot beneath a road bridge, and chooses to wait on the "live" side of the now-common yellow line?  A train approaches which isn't scheduled to stop, the driver sees the person, sounds a warning but the person is startled and makes contact with the fast-moving train.  Who is responsible?  If warning signs and markings are present to the required extent and are ignored then the test of what a reasonable person would do surely is to take due heed of those and remain in the appropriate areas.  Is the driver responsible for startling the person by sounding the horn?  Or would they be any more responsible had they not done so but the impact had still occurred?  

 

The law is not an ass.  But neither is it to be taken for a fool.  We should not be living our lives in fear of being taken to task.  Most of us - and all in the rail industry - should receive adequate on-job training to ensure we work safely no matter what.  The liability isn't always with the passenger but probably is on many more occasions than they might choose to believe.

[Zomboid]

To amplify that perhaps consider a (theoretical) instance where a person has run onto the platform to see their train about to depart and the doors closing. Whether or not it is DOO(P), operated by Southern or not we assume for now that station and on-board staff have carried out their duties correctly and the train is being despatched. The runner then thrusts an umbrella or newspaper into the closing doorway hoping to have the doors re-open but instead finds themselves being dragged along the platform clutching at the item which is trapped in the doors. Who is liable for the injuries they sustain - possibly fatal - arising from an act of perhaps impulsive thought or wanton impatience? Unless fault is found with train or staff then no-one but the runner themselves.

 

Wouldn't that go to the train design/ maintenance? It shouldn't be possible to move a train with the passenger doors slightly open - if I remember right that was the root cause of the Hayes incident.

[jjb1970]

I don’t disagree with most of that. Clearly we are all responsible for our own safety and if railways implement reasonable precautions for keeping people safe then they are not usually responsible if people ignore or override those provisions. However, it is not as simple as saying that if people do something stupid then it’s their fault and not that of the railway. If a member of staff observes a member of the public approaching danger and through their inaction (or action) fails to act so as to prevent that person to suffer injury or death then regardless of the stupidity of the public the railway and member of staff have a degree of responsibility. Does that mean people aren’t responsible for their own actions? No, but it also means that companies and their employees have a duty of care which does not end simply because members of the public can be idiots. I was a senior authorised person and control person for HV safety and mechanical plant in power stations, we regularly had issues with honest, hard working people trying to steal copper or indulge in their harmless and wholesome hobby of graffiti and vandalism. The fact that these people were themselves acting in breach of a multitude of laws in no way absolved me or my colleagues from our duty of care for such people. That doesn’t mean that we were going to be held liable regardless and if something happened outside our control or which we could not reasonably be aware of then it wasn’t an issue for us. On the other hand if we saw people on CCTV, or a warning alarm went active, or a member of the public phoned in to say they’d spotted idiots who were about to earn a Darwin award then we had a duty to act and we would have been liable if we just ignored it and allowed people to fry themselves. And quite rightly so. The courts are a lot more switched on than usually credited with, if people have done what they reasonably can to keep people safe then they should be OK, when they face problems is if they haven’t. The fact that somebody does something stupid is not a defence for somebody else to fail to discharge their own responsibilities.

[The Stationmaster]

See my reply to Phil-b259. I did not say that DOO could not be safe (in fact, I have said the opposite) - for some reason you think I did and have aligned me to the RMT - I have nothing to do with them and my posting has nothing to do with them - that is your assumption and I presume why your responses are in the tone they are.

 

I haven't been looking for evidence of anything in particular - what I pointed out is that there had been 4 reported dispatch incidents involving DOO trains: the one you chose to highlight (inaccurately, but there we are) does on any sane reading suggest that it probably would not have happened under guard dispatch, so perhaps you would like to read it and accept your error, noting, as I do, that while that appears to be what occurred, it is not any evidence that DOO is high risk per se, although it does suggest (along with the other reported incidents) that there may need to be consideration of where it is introduced and what steps need to be taken to mitigate risk.

 

Sorry but we're still talking at cross purposes - I have consistently referred to operational safety incidents (none) because there have never been any but you keep referring to train despatch/ 'door dragging' (horrible term but in common use) incidents and the two are not the same.  Despatch incidents, various. are not operational safety incidents because basically - unless something very unusual happens - they do not affect the safe operation of the railway in terms of avoiding such things as derailments, collisions, trains parting and so on.  As it happens - and no comment intended on where you are coming from in your point of view - these sort of incidents were exactly what the unions (mainly one of them) advanced as arguments on 'safety grounds' against DOO when it was first proposed and records clearly show that such claims were and have been ever since completely without foundation.  All the RMT started to do this time round was re-run the old opposition of 'safety' when it has been factually shown to be irrelevant and is not an issue.

 

Train despatch is in a wholly different category and in reality we don't really seem to have any statistics to allow proper comparison in one direction or the other, merely a few incidents.  If we were to risk assess DOO(P) on that basis alone I have little doubt it would actually statistically be shown to be ALARP (I.e. the risk is As Low As Reasonably Practicable) because the rate of incidence (based on reported incidents) in miniscule although the potential consequences would definitely be towards the high end of the scale proovided of course the correct equipment etc is used.  Comparison with incidents where Guards are responsible for despatch would probably produce similar conclusions - again if sufficient data is available .  That, whether we like it or not, is the way the industry will look at despatch incidents when considering the risk potential relating to train despatch.

[The Stationmaster]

Wouldn't that go to the train design/ maintenance? It shouldn't be possible to move a train with the passenger doors slightly open - if I remember right that was the root cause of the Hayes incident.

That is indeed the lesson of Hayes, simple as that (plus the need for staff to understand that lesson as well).  The whole question of such things as door sensitivity (to objects preventing them closing) and Traction Interlocks (preventing movements when doors aren't detected 'closed') seems to be subject to considerable variation and it would be interesting to know from the various engineers on the forum if there is now a common standard.

 

For example on my last 'big railway' operator our trains had a TIS (Traction Interlock Switch) but unknown to many of us it was inoperative above a certain speed meaning that if a door could be forced open - hardly an easy task as it happens. fortunately - while the train was travelling at speed the TIS would not intervene.  This was presumably to minimise the risk of either a hard brake application or loss of traction which could strand the train in, say, a neutral section but still posing an interesting - if potentially unanswerable question - about where a door not correctly closed risk could arise.  No doubt the greatest danger had been assessed as when passengers were trying to board (logical) so the TIS was set accordingly.

[royaloak]

So, the RAIB are part of the conspiracy are they? If, as you put it:-

 

 

then why does the RAIB completely ingore the point.

 

Sorry, the RAIB* are the ones who investigate incidents - not your or I and unless they feel a particular factor is worthy of comment then any private opinions are irrelevant when discussing incidents.

 

*Or the HMRI before them.

Neither Mersey Rail or the RAIB could fault the Guards actions (the RAIB actually commended him for the speed and way he handled the situation) but the H&S executive have decided to prosecute him.

 

Would you like to try again?

[royaloak]

Thank you for clarifying things and providing grater clarity as to what you feel to be the nub of the issue here - the threat of prosecution. You would like to think that If the correct mitigation methods (whatever they may be for said location) are in place and all staff do what is expected of them (as detailed in the RAIB investigation) then prosecution should never be attempted - and CPS need to be told that in no uncertain terms by the court.

 

I rue the day the country decided it needed to go down the American legal route of 'where there is blame there is a claim' precisely because of the way such an ethos inevitably has spread into more serious things than whiplash claims.

 

I totally understand your desire not to be the guy standing in front of the people with the funny wigs, but if I may say so, is it not the case that having a Guard simply shifts the onus onto them? In other words while you may escape being in the dock - your Guard (as in the MerseyRail case) may not be so fortunate.

 

As a Driver are you a member of ASLEF? if so then you are naturally privy to the specifics of the deal and are obviously perfectly within you rights to criticise your own union. If you are one of the 12 (IIRC) drivers that are members of the RMT then I can understand your anger at effectively being excluded from the negotiations - though what ASLEF does is of course a matter for them and their members.

As previously posted, ask the Mersey Rail Guard who the H&S Executive have decided to prosecute despite the RAIB (you know, those charged with investigating accidents) not finding fault with his actions, whether ithe prosecution should have happened or not is irrelevant, the fact it has happened is relevant.

 

A guard can give their full attention to the PTI, something a driver cant do simply because we have to drive the train at the same time which, surprisingly to some, would take some of our attention and vision away from the ipad sized screens showing the images of the side of the train.

 

With the same equipment the guard can observe the train out completely and a big red button to stop the train would invariably mean they could stop the train as quick as a driver (if the driver happens to be looking at the screen when the incident happens) or quicker than the driver (if the driver is actually concentrating on driving the train at the time and looking out of the windscreen or instrument panel when the incident happens).

 

The Guards ability to observe the PTI has been designed out of all modern trains, it could just as easily be designed back in but there isnt the will to do so, to me that is not a valid reason/excuse to throw everything onto the drivers shoulders and send the Guards down the dole office (as has happened on every other DOO scheme in England and I see no reason why Southern would be any different!

 

I am part of ASLEF but dont work for Southern but I have seen the 'deal' and I would be very surprised if the drivers accept it.

[royaloak]

If the "nub of the issue" is the threat of prosecution then the problem is the general shift to a litigious society where "no win no fee" lawyers seem to be calling the shots.

And the H&S Executive!

 

DO you remember the Plymouth bump where a 4 coach 150 collided with a stationary HST?

 

GWR have received over twice as many claims as there were people on the train, including some who said they were on the HST which had arrived from Laira Depot and still had all the doors locked.

[royaloak]

Stationmaster,

 

You keep going on that the RAIB doesnt compare Guard operation with DOO and its quite simply because its outside their remit, all they are tasked with is finding out what caused the incident and make recommendations within a very strict criteria, otherwise you could end up with the ridiculous situation where they recommend having a staff member at every door.

 

They are currently investigating 4 trap and drags involving DOO trains and 1 involving a Guard, you do the maths taking into account the number of DOO trains compared to Guarded ones and the number of stations they each call at!

 

DOO doesnt look so good then does it!

[jjb1970]

whether ithe prosecution should have happened or not is irrelevant, the fact it has happened is relevant.

Whether or not a prosecution should have happened is entirely relevant. If the HSE decide there is a case to answer then it is a matter for the courts, not conjecture on the Internet, to decide whether or not the case has merit and to reach a verdict.

[royaloak]

Whether or not a prosecution should have happened is entirely relevant. If the HSE decide there is a case to answer then it is a matter for the courts, not conjecture on the Internet, to decide whether or not the case has merit and to reach a verdict.

Even though the RAIB investigated it and couldnt find fault with any staff involved!

[Guest]

FFS... round and round and ROUND we go...

[Bernard Lamb]

FFS... round and round and ROUND we go...

Indeed.

But it does provide me, as an outsider, an idea of the problem and why there seems to be little prospect regarding any chance of  a sensible solution.

The funny thing is that when Southern started the cross London north south service it was excellent. Now I don't bother, so that's one customer lost.

Bernard

[Mike Storey]

Can I just ask a question to clarify? On in-cab monitored DOO systems currently, when do the screens extinguish? Is it when the doors are "proven" closed, or when the train has moved? ( I only have practical experience of on-platform CCTV and mirrors, where the screens do not extinguish until the train has moved a certain distance).

[phil-b259]

 

I am part of ASLEF but dont work for Southern but I have seen the 'deal' and I would be very surprised if the drivers accept it.

 

Interesting.... but when discussing the suspension of industrial action with a friend, I did wonder if the fact that Southern metro drivers have been operating DOO for two decades now would have an impact on the result. Given they went on strike along with the rest of the Drivers they must have a say in the deal - so are they willing to continue the action and lose money in defence of their 'outer' colleagues?

 

(Note, there is no way Southern would ever countenance abandoning DOO on metro routes)

[phil-b259]

As previously posted, ask the Mersey Rail Guard who the H&S Executive have decided to prosecute despite the RAIB (you know, those charged with investigating accidents) not finding fault with his actions, whether ithe prosecution should have happened or not is irrelevant, the fact it has happened is relevant.

 

A guard can give their full attention to the PTI, something a driver cant do simply because we have to drive the train at the same time which, surprisingly to some, would take some of our attention and vision away from the ipad sized screens showing the images of the side of the train.

 

With the same equipment the guard can observe the train out completely and a big red button to stop the train would invariably mean they could stop the train as quick as a driver (if the driver happens to be looking at the screen when the incident happens) or quicker than the driver (if the driver is actually concentrating on driving the train at the time and looking out of the windscreen or instrument panel when the incident happens).

 

 

Firstly I think the HSE are well out of order in pushing ahead with a prosecution given the RAIB report into the incident - but as you say the reality of the situation is that such a prosecution is indeed underway and it thus has implications. It has undoubtedly upped the anti as it were in the Southern dispute and left drivers fearful of what may happen in future. Statistically the chances of such an incident occurring are low - the record of DOO over the past 30 years proves that, but as you say it only takes one sucessfull prosecution to wreck a drivers career.

 

On the plus side, as with all legal cases it will undoubtedly set a precedent to be followed in any subsequent case. Should the prosecution succeed then yes, the effect on all staff - be they drivers or Guards is going to be significant and the DfT / TOCs will be forced to address the issue - possibly along the lines you mention. However we must not also discount the possibility that if the judgement goes the other way (either through a not guilty verdict or a judge throwing it out) then railway staff can be assured as long as they do their jobs correctly a prosecution will not succeed.

[KTM]

I'm writing this as a Southern rail user who has been seriously inconvenienced on many occasions (as has my employer) and also as a railway enthusiast.

 

I can't claim to know all the details and arguments on each side but I do know this; There is no way we can be 100% safe on our rail network, or our roads, or in the air or at sea. It's all a compromise that allows working life to function with minimal disruption for an 'acceptable' risk of mortality and injury. Anyone who thinks differently is living in a dream world. If safety really is the No.1 priority them we wouldn't move the trains. Period.

 

So, having accepted the compromise that life is, can both sides re-evaluate their arguments and give us the service we pay for, please?

 

Jon

[Guest]

I did wonder if the fact that Southern metro drivers have been operating DOO for two decades now would have an impact on the result. Given they went on strike along with the rest of the Drivers they must have a say in the deal - so are they willing to continue the action and lose money in defence of their 'outer' colleagues?

 

As one of those "Metro" drivers working DOO out of Selhurst since shortly after its introduction, Phil's post nicely sums up my frustration at the ping-pong game this thread has turned into. When we lost the slam-door suburban stock, did we want DOO? Probably not. Remember that those early platform-end monitors and mirrors were a bit sh*te... on-board CCTV and in-cab monitors were as far in the future to us as the hovercar. Did we get used to it quickly enough? Of course we did. Such is life. I get that one person in particular using this thread thinks DOO is bad. Fine... you're entitled to your opinion but please stop beating us to death with it. Change came to us on inner suburban workings, and change is coming to those elsewhere. If you really don't like it, other jobs are available.

 

II can't claim to know all the details and arguments on each side but I do know this; There is no way we can be 100% safe on our rail network, or our roads, or in the air or at sea. It's all a compromise that allows working life to function with minimal disruption for an 'acceptable' risk of mortality and injury. Anyone who thinks differently is living in a dream world. If safety really is the No.1 priority them we wouldn't move the trains. Period.

 

Precisely. I sometimes think it takes a non-railway employee to see through all the cr@p and say it like it is.

[royaloak]

I'm writing this as a Southern rail user who has been seriously inconvenienced on many occasions (as has my employer) and also as a railway enthusiast.

 

I can't claim to know all the details and arguments on each side but I do know this; There is no way we can be 100% safe on our rail network, or our roads, or in the air or at sea. It's all a compromise that allows working life to function with minimal disruption for an 'acceptable' risk of mortality and injury. Anyone who thinks differently is living in a dream world. If safety really is the No.1 priority them we wouldn't move the trains. Period.

 

So, having accepted the compromise that life is, can both sides re-evaluate their arguments and give us the service we pay for, please?

 

Jon

Who has mentioned 100% safety, I am on about as safe as possible?

 

If you are so blaze about safety do you drive your car without wearing a seatbelt?

 

Anyway I am off this thread and forum, as a serving train driver who will shortly be affected by this I do have very strong views especially with all the RAIB investigations into incidents on DOO trains at the moment, but as the RAIB have never said that having a guard would have prevented an incident I am obviously wrong (read up on the parameters they have to work to so you can understand why thats the case) so enjoy yourselves on your long distance DOO train and I hope you are never in need of assistance like a wheelchair user needs because quite often it just isnt there, even with these supposed OBS on every train that formerly had a guard on board, joke, about 20% dont have one!

[royaloak]

As one of those "Metro" drivers working DOO out of Selhurst since shortly after its introduction, Phil's post nicely sums up my frustration at the ping-pong game this thread has turned into. When we lost the slam-door suburban stock, did we want DOO? Probably not. Remember that those early platform-end monitors and mirrors were a bit sh*te... on-board CCTV and in-cab monitors were as far in the future to us as the hovercar. Did we get used to it quickly enough? Of course we did. Such is life. I get that one person in particular using this thread thinks DOO is bad. Fine... you're entitled to your opinion but please stop beating us to death with it. Change came to us on inner suburban workings, and change is coming to those elsewhere. If you really don't like it, other jobs are available.

 

 

Precisely. I sometimes think it takes a non-railway employee to see through all the cr@p and say it like it is.

Ah yes, inner suburban where all the plartforms are staffed and the stations are quite close together.

 

I am sorry you dont like my opinion I wont trouble you again.