Southern Rail Franchise

[phil-b259]

Is that the incident where the elderly lady tried to get on when the doors were closed and fell between the gap?

 

If so the train never moved and the guard was cleared of any wrongdoing by MerseyRail and the RAIB (he was actually praised for the speed and professional way he dealt with it) but the Criminal Protection Service Crown Prosecution Service decided there was a case to answer under some Health and Safety legislation and tasked the BTP with gathering the evidence. 

 

That case has been adjourned 3(I think) times now and doesnt look to be heard any time soon.

 

Or is it a different example?

 

I was thinking more of an incident where a young lady coming home after a night out got something trapped in a door and got dragged to her death - despite the train carrying a Guard.

[royaloak]

I was thinking more of an incident where a young lady coming home after a night out got something trapped in a door and got dragged to her death - despite the train carrying a Guard.

That was several years ago and has been done and dusted, Guard ultimately responsible for an underage drunk and drugged girl, unlike the people who had got her or allowed her to get in that state in the first place none of whom were charged with anything.

 

Oh she wasnt on her way home, she was on her way out to get some more, her friends (one of whose houses she had been given the drugs and alcohol at a party) were inside the train laughing about her getting off the train early!

 

Of course on a DOO train that responsibility sits squarely on the drivers shoulders!

 

Or is it a different one which has happened more recently?

[phil-b259]

That was several years ago and has been done and dusted, Guard ultimately responsible for an underage drunk and drugged girl, unlike the people who had got her or allowed her to get in that state in the first place none of whom were charged with anything.

 

Oh she wasnt on her way home, she was on her way out to get some more, her friends (one of whose houses she had been given the drugs and alcohol at a party) were inside the train laughing about her getting off the train early!

 

Of course on a DOO train that responsibility sits squarely on the drivers shoulders!

 

Nope, that was the incident I was thinking of - though in truth I didn't think it was that long ago.

 

While yes, in the absence of a Guard, the driver would have hypothetically been in the dock - the point still stands that on this occasion the fact a Guard was present on the service did not prevent a very 'serious incident' as you might put it from occurring. Yes if the lady concerned hadn't drunk so much and if her friends hadn't done so and so then of course it might never of happened - but the presence of a Guard made no difference to what happened on that platform did it?

 

While the driver may well have felt relieved not to be the one being prosecuted - are we effectively saying that Guards are there to be sacrificed in place of drivers if the CPS decides to peruse a case?

 

Similarly the 1989 'serious incident' I mentioned at Belgrove was instigated by the Guard giving the RA against a red signal (despite the fact all Guards knew they shouldn't and the signal had stayed at red from before the train had arrived at the station). Now naturally I am not saying the Guard was the only guilty party - he doesn't drive the train after all, but it still counts as an incident where the Guard made things worse rather than better.

 

Now don't get me wrong - I am not advocating the wholesale removal of Guards from trains come what may, but insisting on them being present at all times is just as foolish as saying you never need them on any train (as the McNulty report suggested). Anyone can pick out incidents where a Guard may, or may not have prevented a 'serious incident' taking place to bolster their case, but as he level crossing stupidity thread demonstrates we need approch the question of whether DOO should be introduced with an open mind rather than being fixated on one particular way of working.

 

DOO as a concept is not inherently unsafe - just as level crossings or 3rd rail electrification are not inherently unsafe when the risks have been correctly identified and addressed. Over 30 years of operation on BR proves this - though as with all things in life there are always improvements that can be made as new technology and new social changes take place in society at large.

 

Yes there are certain risks which not having a Guard throws up - many of which (note, I didn't say 'all') can be addressed through better technology or putting staff on the stations rather than the trains (as London Overground and Southern Metro routes do). Other risk factors will vary depending on train speeds, how long the interval is between station calls, train loadings, platform busyness, etc.  In other cases the probability of said risk occurring is such that mitigation is unaffordable (based on the ALARP principles) and that risk is one that has to be lived with. Finally there are other customer service roles to think about - but again it does not follow that putting a Guard on the train is automatically better than staffing stations.

 

As The Stationmaster said on the now locked thread, the implementation of DOO on Southern should have been left as something for the local staff and management to sort out themselves based on local discussions with both sides making compromises to active a solution which reflects the very diverse requirements that occur throughout the Southern network during the day. This accepts that on some routes Guards may well be the most effective method of working, on others staffing stations might be better and that at times of serious disruption, some DOO on otherwise non DOO routes might be needed.

 

Instead we have a Government determined to pick (and win) a fight with the trade unions, while for their part, the trade unions have taken an flawed ideological position on DOO which cannot be backed up by the evidence of the past 30 years (as opposed to the selective citing of incidents). Both sides are as bad each other and is it any wonder that the travelling public have lost patience with both - who are more interested in ideology than actually letting the local people on the ground come to some sort of accommodation.

[SouthernMafia]

Had an interesting situation on Monday (during the guards' strike).

 

Southern trains towards Portsmouth Harbour were arriving at Havant and chucking their passengers out before carrying on empty.

 

I was on one of them - the driver made an announcement to the effect that if there was a conductor on the train they should contact the driver. I presume none did because we all then had to get off.

 

I asked the driver of the next train (politely) if this was as far as he could go DOO, and he said yes and muttered something about SWT.

 

A fellow passenger said that SWT won't permit Southern to dispatch trains from their stations DOO.

 

I have no idea if it's true but it would explain what was happening.

 

We all had to wait for an SWT train but going the other way is presumably less useful because passengers wouldn't be able to get off an SWT and onto a Southern train there.

Apologies if this has been noted already but I haven't had a chance to read this thread in detail yet.

I managed to watch the dispatch procedure at Southampton Central today as I was curious to know how they did it following this post.

It's basically a two man dispatch simulating CD/RA equipment, one dispatcher stands by cab, and second by stairs towards rear. Rear dispatcher gives first tip to front dispatcher, who relays to Driver. Driver closes doors, then rear dispatcher gives second tip to front man, who gives green flag to driver.

 

All this while the OBS looks on...

[Coryton]

Apologies if this has been noted already but I haven't had a chance to read this thread in detail yet.

I managed to watch the dispatch procedure at Southampton Central today as I was curious to know how they did it following this post.

It's basically a two man dispatch simulating CD/RA equipment, one dispatcher stands by cab, and second by stairs towards rear. Rear dispatcher gives first tip to front dispatcher, who relays to Driver. Driver closes doors, then rear dispatcher gives second tip to front man, who gives green flag to driver.

 

All this while the OBS looks on...

 

Interesting.

 

And if the OBS is absent, the train then misses out all the SWT stations without platform dispatch staff?

[Derekl]

“The evidence is that there has not been a single case of any sort of operational safety incident where DOO (of any sort) was reported as an additional contributory factor to that incident - simples.  If you don't believe me you can plough back through 30 years of Reports and annual summaries to find the ones I and the railway industry might have missed.”

 

I am not quite sure what you are saying here: you initially said that there had been no operational safety incident as a result of DOO(P) – I am still not sure what the (P) refers to. I pointed out that there have been 4 RAIB reported incidents involving DOO trains – you responded by saying there had been none affecting the “safety of the line/train”.

 

I was unsure what you meant, and remain so – how exactly is DOO even likely to affect the safety of the line or train? The risk on DOO is a person not being identified, being trapped and dragged, sometimes resulting in life threatening or changing injuries, as has happened. These four reports I identified show that is exactly what can happen and did on DOO – it is possibly the presence of platform staff or a guard would have made no difference, but it is for you to look at these and say so (and why, not merely an assertion on the basis of your experience.)

 

Although if you believe in conspiracy theories you could perhaps say that as the conditions for the introduction of DOO were jointly produced between BR and the railway Inspectorate they'd hardly be likely to show themselves up in a bad light.

 

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories as I made quite clear – suggesting I do is simply a cheap jibe and inappropriate to any proper discussion of the issues.

 

Simple fact DOO is operationally as safe as operating a train with a Guard or other second crew member.

 

Evidence please – this is simply an unsupported assertion.

 

You provided evidence - sorry a list - of incidents relating to passengers joining or attempting to join trains.  That list was not balanced by one listing similar incidents on trains which had Guards (at least one of which involved a passenger fatality - from which bald statistic you could as readily conclude the equally baseless assertion that having a Guard in charge of closing train doors is more likely to kill people than not having a Guard because that is what the statistics 'prove')

 

I provided a list of incidents involving passenger injuries on DOO trains – I did so because my view was that your original assertion: “DOO(P) has never, to my knowledge, been responsible for any sort of operational safety incident since it was first used in Britain 30 odd years ago” was simply wrong. You have not addressed that.

 

If you want to balance the list, if you think it is necessary, feel free. Most of your last paragraph makes no sense – there have clearly been incidents where guards have been in charge of trains, but that is not the issue: the issue is whether DOO is less or more safe, and in what environment.

[caradoc]

That was several years ago and has been done and dusted, Guard ultimately responsible for an underage drunk and drugged girl, unlike the people who had got her or allowed her to get in that state in the first place none of whom were charged with anything.

 

Oh she wasnt on her way home, she was on her way out to get some more, her friends (one of whose houses she had been given the drugs and alcohol at a party) were inside the train laughing about her getting off the train early!

 

Of course on a DOO train that responsibility sits squarely on the drivers shoulders!

 

Or is it a different one which has happened more recently?

 

royaloak, while you are absolutely entitled to hold strong views about DOO, given that this case resulted in a death, and subsequent prosecution and sentencing, I believe you should be very careful in what you say about the victim. 

 

phil-b259 makes some good points, particularly regarding the entrenched position of both sides. This dispute must be resolved eventually, and surely the only solution is some form of compromise; For example, the RMT accepting that existing DOO remains, and the TOC/DFT accepting that any extension of DOO is subject to stringent conditions, perhaps a limit to the length of train that can run under DOO and a guarantee that busy peak-hour services must have a Guard, for example. 

[The Stationmaster]

“The evidence is that there has not been a single case of any sort of operational safety incident where DOO (of any sort) was reported as an additional contributory factor to that incident - simples.  If you don't believe me you can plough back through 30 years of Reports and annual summaries to find the ones I and the railway industry might have missed.”

 

I am not quite sure what you are saying here: you initially said that there had been no operational safety incident as a result of DOO(P) – I am still not sure what the (P) refers to. I pointed out that there have been 4 RAIB reported incidents involving DOO trains – you responded by saying there had been none affecting the “safety of the line/train”.

 

I was unsure what you meant, and remain so – how exactly is DOO even likely to affect the safety of the line or train? The risk on DOO is a person not being identified, being trapped and dragged, sometimes resulting in life threatening or changing injuries, as has happened. These four reports I identified show that is exactly what can happen and did on DOO – it is possibly the presence of platform staff or a guard would have made no difference, but it is for you to look at these and say so (and why, not merely an assertion on the basis of your experience.)

 

Although if you believe in conspiracy theories you could perhaps say that as the conditions for the introduction of DOO were jointly produced between BR and the railway Inspectorate they'd hardly be likely to show themselves up in a bad light.

 

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories as I made quite clear – suggesting I do is simply a cheap jibe and inappropriate to any proper discussion of the issues.

 

Simple fact DOO is operationally as safe as operating a train with a Guard or other second crew member.

 

Evidence please – this is simply an unsupported assertion.

 

You provided evidence - sorry a list - of incidents relating to passengers joining or attempting to join trains.  That list was not balanced by one listing similar incidents on trains which had Guards (at least one of which involved a passenger fatality - from which bald statistic you could as readily conclude the equally baseless assertion that having a Guard in charge of closing train doors is more likely to kill people than not having a Guard because that is what the statistics 'prove')

 

I provided a list of incidents involving passenger injuries on DOO trains – I did so because my view was that your original assertion: “DOO(P) has never, to my knowledge, been responsible for any sort of operational safety incident since it was first used in Britain 30 odd years ago” was simply wrong. You have not addressed that.

 

If you want to balance the list, if you think it is necessary, feel free. Most of your last paragraph makes no sense – there have clearly been incidents where guards have been in charge of trains, but that is not the issue: the issue is whether DOO is less or more safe, and in what environment.

 

To be honest I think we're going round in circles so, for clarity I'll repeat -

 

1. There has to my knowledge been no operational safety/safety of the line incident where the fact that the train was DOO instead of having two crew members was either the cause or a contributory factor and - as you may or may not have heard - that was repeated fairly recently by the Chief Inspecting Officer who stated that DOO operation of passenger [i.e. DOO(P)} trains is safe.  DOO(P) distinguishes passenger trains from  freight trains - simple as that (as there are probably still differences between the required conditions for each of them).  I have never seen an annual Report from the Inspectorate which has said otherwise since the inception of either type of DOO operation - it is operationally safe.  In fact it some respects it could even be described as safer because it removes the risk potential for 'ding-ding and away' SPADs which some years back were cause for increasing concern due to their frequency in SPAD analysis data and led to such things as the DRA (Driver's Reminder Appliance) and a considerable review of the siting of platform 'starting signals' in order to improve the Guard's sighting of them (I reviewed the whole of the former WR as it happens).

 

2. Passenger door incidents are a completely different matter and can only be properly judged against the detailed circumstances of each incident and the simple fact is that such incidents have involved trains at staffed and unstaffed stations (which might or might not be relevant), some have had Guards and some have been DOO(P) - which again might or might not be relevant and they will be drawn to attention in the Inspectorate's Annual Report if there are any consistent features.  The Inspectorate do not yet seem to have been sufficiently concerned by the incidence rate to draw attention to them as a shortcoming associated with DOO passenger train operation as opposed to any other sort of operation.  However the Chief Inspecting Officer did draw attention, when commenting on the overall safety of DOO, to the need to ensure that suitable equipment is provided and is operational - which strikes me as plain commonsense but it was no doubt politic for him to say so.

[Coryton]

stated that DOO operation of passenger [i.e. DOO(P)} trains is safe.  DOO(P) distinguishes passenger trains from  freight trains - simple as that (as there are probably still differences between the required conditions for each of them).  I have never seen an annual Report from the Inspectorate which has said 

 

 

Is an ECS train DOO or DOO(P)? I would have assumed the former, but....?

[roythebus]

ECS was DOO from inception in the 1980's. I worked a few DOO from Clapham Yard to Waterloo.

 

I suppose if you go back in time with statistics, you could prove the case for NOT having guards, because every passenger incident would have been on a train with a guard.

 

The DaFT and the TOCs want the job done as cheaply as possible; the unions are there to protect their members jobs; the public want the trains to run on time, and above all to run safely. Safety costs money, either in CCTV equipment or whatever, staff on trains or platforms, and jobs cost money.

 

When the Victoria Line opened as the automatic railway, they had to put a driver in the cab but done away with guards. What LT saved on guards wages was outweighed by the cost of the automatic equipment and the provision of far more AETs (automatic equipment technicians) to keep the auto stuff working. The AETs were on a far higher rate than guards. Maybe the same might apply to what is happening today?

[phil-b259]

“The evidence is that there has not been a single case of any sort of operational safety incident where DOO (of any sort) was reported as an additional contributory factor to that incident - simples.  If you don't believe me you can plough back through 30 years of Reports and annual summaries to find the ones I and the railway industry might have missed.”

 

I am not quite sure what you are saying here: you initially said that there had been no operational safety incident as a result of DOO(P) – I am still not sure what the (P) refers to. I pointed out that there have been 4 RAIB reported incidents involving DOO trains – you responded by saying there had been none affecting the “safety of the line/train”.

 

I was unsure what you meant, and remain so – how exactly is DOO even likely to affect the safety of the line or train? The risk on DOO is a person not being identified, being trapped and dragged, sometimes resulting in life threatening or changing injuries, as has happened. These four reports I identified show that is exactly what can happen and did on DOO – it is possibly the presence of platform staff or a guard would have made no difference, but it is for you to look at these and say so (and why, not merely an assertion on the basis of your experience.)

 

Although if you believe in conspiracy theories you could perhaps say that as the conditions for the introduction of DOO were jointly produced between BR and the railway Inspectorate they'd hardly be likely to show themselves up in a bad light.

 

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories as I made quite clear – suggesting I do is simply a cheap jibe and inappropriate to any proper discussion of the issues.

 

Simple fact DOO is operationally as safe as operating a train with a Guard or other second crew member.

 

Evidence please – this is simply an unsupported assertion.

 

You provided evidence - sorry a list - of incidents relating to passengers joining or attempting to join trains.  That list was not balanced by one listing similar incidents on trains which had Guards (at least one of which involved a passenger fatality - from which bald statistic you could as readily conclude the equally baseless assertion that having a Guard in charge of closing train doors is more likely to kill people than not having a Guard because that is what the statistics 'prove')

 

I provided a list of incidents involving passenger injuries on DOO trains – I did so because my view was that your original assertion: “DOO(P) has never, to my knowledge, been responsible for any sort of operational safety incident since it was first used in Britain 30 odd years ago” was simply wrong. You have not addressed that.

 

If you want to balance the list, if you think it is necessary, feel free. Most of your last paragraph makes no sense – there have clearly been incidents where guards have been in charge of trains, but that is not the issue: the issue is whether DOO is less or more safe, and in what environment.

 

DOO (P) I presume refers to passenger operations - Freight trains have been (DOO (F)? for decades now. Its also worth noting that while such a train itself may not carry passengers certain of the scare tactics (i.e. protection of the line) are just as relevant - particularly on our mixed use railway where the next train to pass is quite likely to be one with passengers on board)

 

But to return to DOO(P), those for incidents you mention are just you cherry picking the accident statistics to support you personal views. While I haven't the time to go back through every accident report dating back to when the railways first opened, I have given you one example where a Guard being present made no difference to someone being dragged to their death and another where the Guard was actively involved in triggering a head on collision!

 

As I, and the Stationmaster keep repeating, yet you and others refuse to acknowledge over the past 30 years DOO has not resulted in a statistically significant increase in passenger death or injury. THAT PROVES that DOO is, in principle, just as safe as traditional Driver  + Guard operation (assuming suitable mitigating measures are in place) so can we ditch the totally unjustified assertion that DOO is always worse.

 

Yes nobody denies that DOO brings extra risks and that various factors come into play that are not necessary for Guard operation - but 30 years of operation shows its perfectly possible to address those through technology or other methods such as staffing station. Also I don't think any sensible railwayman would take issue with the principle that a 'one size fits all' approch is a bad idea - DOO needs to be considered on a route by route basis.

 

Working on this basis allows specific situations where DOO is genuinely unsuitable (and there will always be exceptions - nobody disputes that) to be given extra attention (e.g. staffing the platforms all day or having a Guard for only part of the journey) while avoiding the farce of saying DOO is unsafe everywhere when 30 years of operation quite clearly proves otherwise.

 

Having the union sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to entertain it in any circumstances or persons like yourself dismissing 30 years worth of operational experience (and the accident stats over the time compared to traditional Guard operations) is just as bad McNulty saying DOO must become the mode of operation everywhere. In fact all it does is reinforce my view that this dispute is more about the RMT keeping their 'ultimate weapon' of bringing services to a halt by calling Guards out on strike intact than any rational analysis of the facts.

 

Don't get me wrong, such a weapon is indeed valuable - working in infrastructure I know that effective strike action is only possible by a very small set of roles. For example If I go on strike, then apart from a few extra delays due to increased response times, my managers will ensure faulty signalling kit gets repaired and trains keep running. Furthermore when the action is over I will be given a whole load of backlog maintenance to be done which means that the effect of me going on strike has simply cost me money and made my life harder while having zero effect on the company.  Now if the signallers go on strike (and infrastructure plus maintenance are subject to the same pay negotiations this year) then nothing runs - suddenly strike action has a big impact and although I have lost wages, thanks to the signallers also striking, the impact is huge.

 

Its a fundamental fact of life that things change due to technology, social trends and ultimately what people are prepared to pay for. Yes if I were a Guard I would naturally expect my Union to stand up for my interests and Yes, moving to DOO does have significant consequences for Guards / OBS/ whatever you want to call them further down the line as the DfT looks to make further cost savings. However as with calls to renationalise the railways, the trade unions need to wake up and start living in the real world. Renationalisation won't happen under a conservative Government however much the Unions scream and shout - furthermore pushing the Labour party (who now back such a move) further to the left of the political spectrum actually reduces the chances they will be winning party in the next general election.

 

In short, protest is al very well in making your feelings known, but if it is clear change will not happen its incumbent on those protesting to deal with the situation as they find it - not as they wish it to be. ALL the relevant facts and statistics PROVE DOO is just as safe as operation with Guards in principle and both the RMT and its Guard members (not withstanding their fully understandable concerns for the future) need to compromise. (The same is also true of ASLEF and its drivers)

[phil-b259]

Interesting.

 

And if the OBS is absent, the train then misses out all the SWT stations without platform dispatch staff?

 

However while passengers wishing to join at intermediate unstaffed stations are disadvantaged - passengers travelling from staffed stations are not. Thus rather than disrupting the journeys of 100% of travellers you are now only disadvantaging 50% say.

[Coryton]

 

When the Victoria Line opened as the automatic railway, they had to put a driver in the cab but done away with guards. What LT saved on guards wages was outweighed by the cost of the automatic equipment and the provision of far more AETs (automatic equipment technicians) to keep the auto stuff working. The AETs were on a far higher rate than guards. Maybe the same might apply to what is happening today?

 

On the tube, wasn't part of the drive to go driver-only because of difficulties in recruiting guards?

[The Stationmaster]

On the tube, wasn't part of the drive to go driver-only because of difficulties in recruiting guards?

 

Yes, and exactly the same on BR.

 

And as Phil has said above it's notable that all the arguments originally used against BR DOO, for both passenger and freight trains, have long since vanished despite the tales of death and destruction they foretold when the changes were originally proposed 30 years ago.  The problem on BR - beginning in the mid-late 1960s and the getting increasingly worse in most areas - was the ever greater difficulty of initial recruitment followed by retention once the '09.00 to 17.00' period of training was over and 02.00 or 03,00 starts came into the picture.  And it's all too easy looking back from here to remember that BR had actually been reduced to recruiting Guards 'off the street' by the mid 1960s because fewer and fewer people were interested in internal promotion into the jobs.  Taking Guards off trains was seen as more something to improve reliability than it was as a tool for saving money.

 

In many respects the grade has done rather well at killing off itself rather than being down away with by management and that has not been helped by many Passenger Guards doing little more than give a rightaway signal at those stations where there isn't station staff or various equipment to do that for them.

[Mike Storey]

One treads with fear when re-entering this debate, as it arouses sincere passions.

 

If I am allowed, I would suggest that many "guards" have done themselves no favours in the past, by not undertaking their routine duties conscientiously. Rarity of ticket checks, absence from passenger areas on late night or other services where staff presence would have been re-assuring, inattention to train punctuality (I found one guard completely asleep once when we were waiting for a right away) and so on. In emergencies, I have several memories, from being a very green, new junior station manager, through to route management roles, where I have had to intervene in operational incidents where the guard, conductor and even senior conductor did not know their job. That stretched from guards who did not know how to release the brakes during a "failure" on 1957 stock, through to SC's who could not undertake simple door failure mode restoration on Mark IV's (despite three day training and one day annual refreshers done by my Trains Inspectors). Such incompetence cost significant delays and passenger frustration (as well as drivers' frustration).

 

Discussion of such with my peers suggests these were not rare. But they were much rarer the further out of London and the South East the further you went. It was pretty normal for Geordie and Edinburgh Senior Conductors to complain about what "my" SC's had not done from the Cross.

 

There were and are, of course, many who did the job they were expected to do and did it very well,  no matter the location. In more recent times, I have found the activities and attitudes of conductors has improved immeasurably in general, but again, primarily outside L&SE, but I have far fewer occasions to experience that now.

 

So whilst theoretical discussion about the relative safety records and risk potential of both modes has its place, there is a simple experience by many, that the mere presence of a "guard" sat in his/her van or compartment, has not sufficiently contributed to the safety of the train, or its passengers, over time, particularly south of London. That absence of action or knowledge has often been substituted by the action and knowledge of drivers or operations staff called to the train. Tricky job for the RMT, but I fully understand the concern of ASLE&F regarding the personal, legal liabilities placed on their members in our scapegoat-seeking times.

 

Not an easy issue to resolve for either party, but the combination of empirical and anecdotal evidence weighs heavily in favour of DOO, with a P or an F. And that is despite my considerable reservations about the adequacy and maintenance of the hardware in use.

[russ p]

It wasn't actually DOO F it was DOO(NP) for freight and parcels working NP standing for non passenger

[The Stationmaster]

It wasn't actually DOO F it was DOO(NP) for freight and parcels working NP standing for non passenger

 

Thanks for reminding us Russ - I will have it somewhere but 'somewhere' is a rather large quantity of boxes, packing cases and shelf space.

[phil-b259]

The BBC are reporting ASLEF and Southern have done a deal. While the details have not been released I would be extremely surprised if there has been a significant change in Southerns position on DOO to make this happen.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38846696

 

The deal is subject to Union members accepting it via a ballot of course, but on the face of it Southern have done exactly what I suspected they would do - cut a deal with the drivers and leave the RMT to continue their futile actions safe in the knowledge that the RMT have been beaten into submission.

 

If so the it only goes to show pig headedness gets you nowhere and its quite possible RMT  members will actually be in a worse position at the end of it compared to if they had decided to compromise when it was clear strike action was having no effect.

[Coryton]

If so the it only goes to show pig headedness gets you nowhere and its quite possible RMT  members will actually be in a worse position at the end of it compared to if they had decided to compromise when it was clear strike action was having no effect.

 

Depends. I thought their position was that they tried to find a compromise but Southern/DfT wouldn't budge.

[phil-b259]

Depends. I thought their position was that they tried to find a compromise but Southern/DfT wouldn't budge.

 

Pig headedness is continuing to carry out an action when all the available evidence shows that course of action is not going to produce the desired aims.

 

As I said in a previous post industrial action is great if it actually produces results - in this case however after 6 months of action it was abundantly clear that the RMTs strategy wasn't working and they were as far away from their stated goals as ever. Moreover their continued action was only making staff poorer and public support was fast evaporating.

 

Yes the RMT made noises about compromise - but in reality they were unwilling to accept the basic premise that in unforeseen / exceptional circumstances or times of significant disruption Southern wanted to run some services as DOO. Yes they did compromise about things like door control in Scotland, but they effectively still have a veto on whether trains would run as ScotRail gave a commitment to cancel the service if no Guard was available for whatever reason.

 

If the RMT wanted to compromise in the Southern dispute, rather than simply opposing DOO in any circumstances they should have been sitting down and coming to an agreement over exactly what 'unforeseen circumstances' meant and thus limit the damage so to speak

 

I don't have any issue with the RMT fighting Southerns actions - if I were a Guard thats precisely what I would be expecting them to do given the implications for future pay, T&Cs, etc. Nor do I oppose the use of strike action to try and make management think again. There comes a point however, when, as any sensible military commander knows, a strategic withdrawal and reassessment of the aims of the offensive is needed. With respect to the RMT / Southern dispute that point has long since passed and its about time the RMT realised it.

[Zomboid]

Depends. I thought their position was that they tried to find a compromise but Southern/DfT wouldn't budge.

I suspect you'd get the exact opposite of that if you asked the DfT/GTR. The truth lying somewhere in between as usual.

[Coryton]

I suspect you'd get the exact opposite of that if you asked the DfT/GTR. The truth lying somewhere in between as usual.

 

Quite likely.

 

But things seem to have gone differently in Scotland with the same union but a different franchise and political situation.

 

Anyway we'll see in a few years if (unlike every previous DOO scheme in England?) trains still carry an OBS apart from 'exceptional situations' or whether they are dispensed with.

[PenrithBeacon]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/02/southern-rail-deal-reached-to-end-strikes-over-driver-only-trains

[phil-b259]

 

 

But things seem to have gone differently in Scotland with the same union but a different franchise and political situation.

 

Anyway we'll see in a few years if (unlike every previous DOO scheme in England?) trains still carry an OBS apart from 'exceptional situations' or whether they are dispensed with.

 

Not quite. While the RMT may have given ground on door control, they have got a cast iron commitment that no Guard/ OBS / Conductor / etc. = no train no matter what the circumstances

 

The DfT have made very clear this is unacceptable with Mr Wilkinson saying he would have vetoed the deal if he had known about it.

 

With the Southern dispute the DfT have demanded that Southern have the right to run trains in DOO mode if 'unforeseen circumstances' mean an OBS is not available.

 

The RMT are never going to get the ScotRail deal repeated - that much has been clear now for at least 6months now - their best hope is to try and narrow down / refine the 'unforeseen circumstances'

 

However with the number of services Southern are able to run on strike days getting more and more every time there is a walk out the clout of the RMT when it comes to trying to influence said wording is rapidly diminishing.

 

As such rather than protecting the OBS role, their continued action actually makes the removal of such a grade in a few years time easier - not harder.

[Mike Storey]

Whilst it is accepted that it may now be a case of trying to violently encourage a deceased gee-gee, it could be reasonably argued that the RMT saw the ScotRail deal as a precedent which they felt obliged to pursue. Wilkinson is being an utter nob by even mentioning it, since it allows the RMT to continue to reference it, whereas if he had one more brain cell, he could have simply stated that what happens in Caledonia, stays in Caledonia, etc.....