Southern Rail Franchise

[Oldddudders]

Its called real life. It happens - a lot. 

 

Tell me again why you should be exempted from it?

The intensely unionised railways have always had more of a complicated process to follow in eliminating surplus staff. Some of the drivers' agreements no doubt still date back to the original suite dated 1922, i.e. the eve of Grouping. Recent changes would appear to have made that task easier with certain grades - and thus much more like the rest of the employment environment.

 

I was intrigued to note that the Scots didn't want jobs in the South East. In my day there was a very steady stream of Jock second-men taking drivers' vacancies at Wimbledon, Selhurst and Slade Green. In the majority of cases, sadly, they then immediately applied for a Clause 8 lateral move back to Scottish depots, which meant they were first in line for a driver's vacancy there.

[Mike Storey]

There is a dichotomy in the pursuit of the two sides of the "surplus staff" argument.

 

On the one hand, the cry we often hear is how much the industry lacks experienced railwayfolk, of any grade.

 

On the other hand, the industry needs the felxibility to innovate, change and cost cut in order to survive.

 

When we were largely despised as a career option, and there were plenty of other jobs available, there was very much a vocational attitude from most of those that, masochistically in many people's view, joined and persevered, despite the low wages and lack of public esteem. Of course, there were also a substantial number who couldn't get a job anywhere else, and some of them simply wanted to get away with as little as possible. But, by and large, it was a lifetime career, and job security was good overall (if you weren't in ferries, hotels or catering). The industry was in modal decline overall, and was trying to fight hard with both hands tied behind its back. The railways kept going, despite the derision, and then started to succeed.

 

Along came the combinations of privatisation, massively growing demand (even in freight until recently), technical innovation, and a worsening wider job market. But also, along came significantly better wages/salaries for the majority in the rail industry, but fewer perks. Perversely, as railways became a more essential part of the nation's life, it has also grown to be viewed as a business, and staff as a commodity (even though government has at last recognised it needs more state intervention). As others point out, that is how the private business world has mostly operated, and that the railway industry should do so.

 

Many see it as the rush to the bottom (doing the bidding of capitalism/now corporatism in the new neo-liberal reality), but that most people, who are caught up in so much of it in the "real" world, see it as inevitable, so why shouldn't rail staff be dragged down with them. On the other hand, many argue that modern, vibrant economies need flexible staff conditions (as well as flexible everything else), in order to grow and succeed in a globally competitive world, through which everyone will benefit from better jobs. Not sure when, or even if, the last bit will happen, apart from those with some key skills in the new technologies, but the majority appear to believe it. At the moment, given the last election results and the referendum result, the mood of the country seems to support the latter, but appears highly conflicted on so many issues. It is certainly not the time to be defending the almost indefensible, unless a much more definite case can be made, beyond the "what if's" and "maybe's". Far better to concentrate on getting the best deal possible for those that may face harder times.

[The Stationmaster]

The intensely unionised railways have always had more of a complicated process to follow in eliminating surplus staff. Some of the drivers' agreements no doubt still date back to the original suite dated 1922, i.e. the eve of Grouping. Recent changes would appear to have made that task easier with certain grades - and thus much more like the rest of the employment environment.

 

I was intrigued to note that the Scots didn't want jobs in the South East. In my day there was a very steady stream of Jock second-men taking drivers' vacancies at Wimbledon, Selhurst and Slade Green. In the majority of cases, sadly, they then immediately applied for a Clause 8 lateral move back to Scottish depots, which meant they were first in line for a driver's vacancy there.

 

Even in later BR years there were very few agreements dating back pre 1939 and certainly not any important ones other than some which were involved with the Machinery of Negotiation but they were basically organisational rather than agreements affecting conditions etc .  Privatisation brought massive changes on the footplate side with ASLE&F generally playing a  blinder on behalf of its members and securing considerable improvements in pay although some might wonder if some of the changes to conditions were as good as others made out.  Basically ASLE&F got what BR had been proposing in the early '90s (and the union had then rejected) but usually with far greater basic salary increases and other benefits.

 

And of course it was a common thing for Secondmen to go to depots in the London area of the Southern to get their (driving) job and then try to get back to their original depot (or another) on a First Preference move.  Subsequent odd periods of redundacy at such depots resulted in some odd events such as 'the Lavender Hill mob' as they were know turning up at Laira from, I believe Slade Green.  And First Preference moves in BR days happened more or less just like that - the list came out towards the end of the week and two weeks later on the Monday anyone who'd got a move would start at their new depot - possibly at the other end of the country.

[Gwiwer]

Referring to the situation of on-board catering staff this "deal" (read "shafting" if you like) was an abrupt change from the status quo and while apparently lawful - TUPE did not apply - was hardly good practice.  The withdrawal of catering went down like a lead balloon with many Brighton line regulars.  

 

However, and as royaloak mentions, the railway is now carrying far more passengers than it ever has done and the reality of the situation was that the trolley was often unable to get through the train and sometimes unable to move from its point of loading account overcrowding.  Something had to give. The days of a 12-car "non-stop" carrying a seated load with a few spare cushions and serving Maxpax from a dedicated vehicle to those who could walk to it were already long gone.  We are in the era when a 12-car train might be carrying a load of 125% or more at times and with no chance for anyone to move anywhere much beyond the door they board at.

[phil-b259]

The only problem with that statement is that I havent been on the railways for decades, I spent most of my working life in the wider economy where funnily enough when times were good and customer numbers increasing the companies sought to employ more staff to deal with them not less as the present government is expecting the railways to do!

 

Anyway have to go because we are having a few friends round for a few lot of drinks,TTFN.

When I joined the railway 16 years ago, my impression was very different - compared to life 'outside' it struck me that railway staff had things quite cushty compared to my previous jobs in retail or manufacturing.

 

As such I read the Governments actions as not so much as an attempt to reduce staff as such, but an attempt to bring the railways into line with the rest of the 'gig' economy. This is where there is no job security - and as with everything else 'competition' (i.e. Keep chopping and changing jobs every few years is celebrated and those not wishing to 'take advantage' of such things get increasingly shafted with respect to pay, T&Cs, pension etc.

 

The Mc-Naulty report in effect said three things about railway workers:-

 

(I) They were overpaid and had gold plated T&Cs + pensions which everyone else had been forced to give up ages ago.

(Ii) Their productivity was low compared to other sectors of the economy.

(Ii) They were highly resistant to change.

 

Simply getting rid of staff will not change these factors - and in fact berried deep within the report was recognition that with the continued rise in passenger numbers more staff are needed than ever. However in the DfTs eyes unless the above factors change more staff are unaffordable. So the idea is (and this is a somewhat dramatic example), if you get rid of Guards you can easily afford to employ more people on the minimum wage and with very poor T&Cs to mitigate the impacts.

[Guest]

I was intrigued to note that the Scots didn't want jobs in the South East. In my day there was a very steady stream of Jock second-men taking drivers' vacancies at Wimbledon, Selhurst and Slade Green. In the majority of cases, sadly, they then immediately applied for a Clause 8 lateral move back to Scottish depots, which meant they were first in line for a driver's vacancy there.

 

A remarkable number of those that came to Norwood decided, for whatever reason, to stay. When I began there in 1983, a crash course in understanding the accent should have been mandatory. There was one guy who, if he liked you, would talk in a remarkably believable "mockney" accent to make himself better understood. If he didn't like you, the heavy Glaswegian accent would let you know.

[Chameleon]

Anyone know any details of the deal between ASLEF and Southern? If the company seems happy with it then we can assume the guards and RMT will be shafted.

[Oldddudders]

A remarkable number of those that came to Norwood decided, for whatever reason, to stay. When I began there in 1983, a crash course in understanding the accent should have been mandatory. There was one guy who, if he liked you, would talk in a remarkably believable "mockney" accent to make himself better understood. If he didn't like you, the heavy Glaswegian accent would let you know.

I'm sure Mixed Traction depots like Norwood offered more interesting fare than the EMU Chimneypot depots. How many Bexleyheaths, Waterloo Rounders or Epsom Downs trips does a man need in his day?

[Derekl]

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.

 

I don't think we are going around in circles, although I do think you ignore the points I made. You said there were no incidents involving DOO operation: when I pointed out that there are 4 reported accidents, you modified that to none involving the integrity of train and track (whatever that may mean: I fail to see how DOO could put train and line integrity at risk).

 

I am aware of and have read the Chief Inspecting Officer's report (available on this page: http://orr.gov.uk/publications/reports):although in substance I agree with it, it is a pretty poor piece of work: it does not clearly identify potential hazards (particularly those reported on in the accident reports) nor does it identify clearly the conditions under which the assessment was undertaken - the trains were presumably 8 coach on the Horsham line (those I have seen en route to Horsham have been 8: it is possibly that some are 12, but that is not identified); how busy trains and platforms were and so on. The finding is that DOO can be safe in certain conditions, but the conditions are not clearly identified: I would expect a competent piece of work to list clearly those conditions - I cannot see that it has.

 

It is quite clear that DOO can be safely operated (I have not suggested otherwise and do not do so). London Overground have been operating DOO without incident for some years, but note that they have relatively short trains, all platforms are manned and distance between stations is modest so if assistance is required it can be reasonably easily sought. That does not seem to apply to many of the longer distance Southern routes.

 

If DOO is to be introduced, I would like to think that these issues have been properly addressed and I am not sure that they have.

 

Overall, do bear in mind that I raised the issue of the reported accidents in the face of your denial that there had been any. I note that you have not suggested that these accidents would not have occurred had the train been crew operated: it is reasonably clear that, for instance, the Hayes & Harlington accident is less likely to have occurred had a guard been monitoring departure. I have not the time to analyse the rest, but Brentwood looks to be similar.

 

Clearly, a guard could also make an error, but in recent train travel in the West Midlands area I have paid attention to dispatch issues and it seems unlikely that either would have been missed.

[phil-b259]

Anyone know any details of the deal between ASLEF and Southern? If the company seems happy with it then we can assume the guards and RMT will be shafted.

 

Well, if this http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/rmt-union-hits-out-at-shocking-betrayal-of-aslef-union-after-deal-agreed-with-southern-rail-a3458496.html report is to be believed, basically the DfT / Southern have got everything they wanted. Namely:-

 

Drivers in charge of doors an train dispatch at non staffed stations,

In times of disruption or where an OBS cannot be provided due to unforeseen circumstances the driver will run the train under pure DOO

 

Understandably the RMT are a tad bitter about it - but I predicted this outcome the moment talks between ASLEF and Southern started.

[Chameleon]

I wonder what the company offered the drivers to make them behave?

[Zomboid]

I wonder what the company offered the drivers to make them behave?

It probably starts with a £

[The Stationmaster]

I don't think we are going around in circles, although I do think you ignore the points I made. You said there were no incidents involving DOO operation: when I pointed out that there are 4 reported accidents, you modified that to none involving the integrity of train and track (whatever that may mean: I fail to see how DOO could put train and line integrity at risk).

 

I am aware of and have read the Chief Inspecting Officer's report (available on this page: http://orr.gov.uk/publications/reports):although in substance I agree with it, it is a pretty poor piece of work: it does not clearly identify potential hazards (particularly those reported on in the accident reports) nor does it identify clearly the conditions under which the assessment was undertaken - the trains were presumably 8 coach on the Horsham line (those I have seen en route to Horsham have been 8: it is possibly that some are 12, but that is not identified); how busy trains and platforms were and so on. The finding is that DOO can be safe in certain conditions, but the conditions are not clearly identified: I would expect a competent piece of work to list clearly those conditions - I cannot see that it has.

 

It is quite clear that DOO can be safely operated (I have not suggested otherwise and do not do so). London Overground have been operating DOO without incident for some years, but note that they have relatively short trains, all platforms are manned and distance between stations is modest so if assistance is required it can be reasonably easily sought. That does not seem to apply to many of the longer distance Southern routes.

 

If DOO is to be introduced, I would like to think that these issues have been properly addressed and I am not sure that they have.

 

Overall, do bear in mind that I raised the issue of the reported accidents in the face of your denial that there had been any. I note that you have not suggested that these accidents would not have occurred had the train been crew operated: it is reasonably clear that, for instance, the Hayes & Harlington accident is less likely to have occurred had a guard been monitoring departure. I have not the time to analyse the rest, but Brentwood looks to be similar.

 

Clearly, a guard could also make an error, but in recent train travel in the West Midlands area I have paid attention to dispatch issues and it seems unlikely that either would have been missed.

 

I repeat for the umpteenth time - there have been no operational safety incidents which can be attributed to DOO or have in any way been exacerbated by it.

 

That is a fact whether or not you believe it and I'm getting fed up with your continued seeming failure to recognise it and what you refer to as my 'repeated denial' - I'm sorry but I can only repeat facts and as such I do not see that as any sort of 'denial' but a statement of the blindingly obvious to those who are able to see it.

 

DOO is a safe form of train operation and has been for around 30 years in Britain.

 

Door incidents are a different matter, have long been differently categorised and I have never said otherwise.  The Hayes incident occurred at a staffed station where staff were on the platform at the time of the incident and had there been a Guard on the train it would have made no difference at all because I'm not really sure how they could have both seen it and reacted quickly enough to do anything about it.  The several staff on the platform did nothing to stop the woman from trying to board the train on which the doors were already closing - the key point being the fact that she tried to board a train on which the doors were closing and not the fact that it happened to be the Driver who was closing them.  

 

I realise there can be no accounting for rank stupidity but at times people really need to take responsibility for their actions and trying to board a train in those circumstances is something I would class as rank stupidity so I'm not at all sure just how far you expect the railway industry, or indeed any body operating public transport, to go in making allowances for the stupidity of passengers. Unfortunately we live in an increasingly litigious society where more and more people seem to want to blame others for the slightest thing that goes wrong.  We have moved, more or less completely on the national network from a situation where the control and operation of train doors was 100% in the hands of passengers to one where trains doors are now - almost universally - locked closed while the train is in motion because there was a succession of idiots who insisted on opening them at the wrong time - that is one reason why passenger fatalities associated with train doors have dramatically fallen.  The next logical step beyond that is to put not just the locking of doors but also the closing of them in the hands of a member of the traincrew thus ensuring that they are closed before they are locked - audible and visual signals that the doors are about to close should be understood by the vast majority of people and nowadays on GWR DOO trains there are repeated announcements not to attempt to alight or board while the doors are closing.

 

If people cannot be relied upon to carry out the simplest of actions I seriously wonder where the world is going. McNaulty drew some rather peculiar conclusions about railway staffing costs (in my view because some of the basic research that he drew on was carried out very poorly) but as Phil has shown applying the McNaulty conclusions means there will - in effect by state directive - be fewer people about on the railway to hold the hands of passengers and that means people have to be responsible for themselves and their own actions, which might not be a bad idea.

 

 

We are in interesting situation as regards disability legislation (seemingly perhaps )yet another example of Parliament's laws of unintended consequences) applying to those who cannot look after themselves by reason of their health or condition but that - thus far fis a separate issue although that could change.

[The Stationmaster]

It probably starts with a £

And no reason why it shouldn't when you think about it.

 

As DOO delivers greater reliability (in terms of a train actually running) the operator would in a normal franchise gain a tangible financial benefit from that so logically that could be 'shared' with the staff whose work changes facilitate such an improvement.  However I suspect that there will be some things in the agreement which are not just related to money and that both sides will be 'delivering' something.

[jjb1970]

The question is not whether there have been incidents with DOO trains, but rather as Station Master is explaining, whether DOO was either a causal factor in those incidents or made them worse. I'll admit I do not give rail accident reports sufficient attention to offer anything like an informed opinion however the absence of a well argued case presenting case histories and rational analysis demonstrating how DOO was a causal or exacerbating factor in incidents seems to back up the Station Master. If the evidence was there then even an organisation as intemperate as the RMT would be able to dial down the rhetoric and chest thumping political sloganeering and just let the evidence speak for itself by getting into the public domain.

[royaloak]

I wonder what the company offered the drivers to make them behave?

Sorry to disappoint you but on the letter I saw the Company havent offered the drivers anything, no payrise or anything.

 

This is only a proposal which has to go to a vote by the members, lets see what happens.

It probably starts with a £

Wrong but please do carry on!

 

I would like to see the paperwork with all the Appendix on them though, the devil is after all in the detail.

[Mike Storey]

The McNulty report was rubbished for its incompetently flawed and highly naive external comparisons. It did result in the RDG, which is, at last, turning out to be better than the previous situation, and it did propose devolution to the routes, on which the jury is still very much out. But most of the savings it assumed would come from the reduction in very high capital project costs, and to that extent it was right, except for the peculiar British situation on planning, compulsory purchase and the hidden entity equivalents of PFI (which are now proving to be almost impossible to repeat in Europe, as subscribers realise how much they have been conned, by SNCF and DBAG particularly). It also sought reduction in costly, multiple franchising model interfaces (without actually daring to ask the Wolmar question - what are franchises for?), which has resulted in compulsory Alliances in new franchises. Again, the jury is so far out on that, it could be on holiday in the Seychelles.....

 

However, it did mention more efficient working practices, but in the detail this was far more to do with staff employed to work mainly at weekends but who were still on Mon-Fri contracts, so that most of their most productive time was all on overtime rates (a well known bugbear in BR days which the new Infracos were going to stop and then fluffed, because the only realistic solution was an annual contract hours deal, which had no short term gain, but a definite long term one, in which of course British private capital has little interest, cf - just about everything). The issue of train staffing was mentioned, even more briefly, once. I suspect that was because one of the authors, who had been the MD of SWT, got nowhere with it in his time (and who has since left the industry). Another author, for whom I do have the utmost respect, was also chair of First Class Partnerships (after a long and eminent BR career) which supplied the team who ran Directly Operated Railways, who ran the East Coast for many years, between the NEx failure and the eventual re-franchising. It is of note however, that during the lengthy tenure of DOR, not one serious innovation nor efficiency gain AFAIK, was attempted.

 

On the face of it, DOO as a philosophy, has no evidential safety issue (but lots of other real issues and potential risks) and does allow the better use of customer facing staff, if the company is committed to using them that way. Scandinavia (the well known socialist collective) has operated this way for decades, as has the Netherlands and to a large extent, metro and suburban operations across Europe. Outside Paris, however, the other extreme is denoted by the extraordinary staffing levels of French regional services, often three on board staff in addition to the driver, working, as far as I can tell, perhaps two or three trips per day, involving about three to four hours actual work per shift. But, because passengers crowd on to the three or four services per day that this cost level allows, McNulty deemed this an efficient use of rolling stock. Twit.

 

Of more note is this https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/taxpayer-to-pay-hundreds-of-millions-for-doo/ . Please read it through, ignoring the hyperbole, and look at the bit about new conditions of relief in franchise contracts on industrial disputes. If true (and there is no reason to believe it is not) it suggests that, sometimes, conspiracies theories turn out to be true. I cannot see any reason for this other than union-breaking. How dare a government use public money in this way, without a mandate. At least Mrs T was quite open about her aims, even if it was couched. Where are Mulder and Scully when we need them?

 

I will not test the moderator's tolerance further, and leave each of you to draw your own conclusions.

['CHARD]

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/taxpayer-to-pay-hundreds-of-millions-for-doo/

 

Knock off the spare '/' 

[Mike Storey]

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/taxpayer-to-pay-hundreds-of-millions-for-doo/

 

Knock off the spare '/' 

Thanks - corrected and appears to work now?

[Coryton]

On the face of it, DOO as a philosophy, has no evidential safety issue (but lots of other real issues and potential risks) and does allow the better use of customer facing staff, if the company is committed to using them that way. 

 

I'd agree that having a member of staff free to walk down the train (or even in a cubicle somewhere in the passenger areas) is more useful for customer service than one who has to stay in the rear cab.

 

But on trains with door controls by the passenger doors, I personally think they provide better customer service overall by having to step onto the platform at each station where they can see if anyone needs assistance and are generally visible to boarding passengers than if they have to stay inside the train - especially if passengers don't even know if there is a member of staff on board or not.

 

One thing that's just occurred to me - on Southern if the automated announcements are playing up on a DOO train is it always the driver's responsibility now to make announcements? Or just if there is no OBS on board?

[Gwiwer]

All other issues aside it is my personal preference to have a member of staff "on the back" and who ideally would make occasional sorties through the train.  Whether for revenue protection, customer service, opening / closing of doors / train despatch is less important than the fact of them being there.  They can be approached with questions, concerns, in emergency and can however passively act as a deterrent to inappropriate behaviour.  They can mitigate delays by being a point of first contact and intervention in some situations which might otherwise require a DOO train to be stopped awaiting station staff, police or ambulance attendance.

 

One cannot ask a DOO driver questions about where to change for Little Nuttingford or whether one is seated in the right portion for ones' destination.  One cannot ask a DOO driver for a helping hand if the step between platform and train is a little daunting and might even require deployment of the ramp.  And this one - perhaps quietly a great majority of the travelling public also - feels just a little less easy being thrust from A to B in an anonymous people-container where any problem is expected to be self-managed by those on board or by summoning external assistance.

 

That provision costs money.  That is a price I am prepared to pay.  It's been nice having some heavily-discounted fares at times and there is no reason why they should not be kept and offered as enticements on a limited-release basis as now.  

 

I grew up, as many of us did, in the days when a conductor took your fares on the bus and the driver drove.  The conductor gave stop and start signals and supervised the platform (or doors in some cases) allowing the driver to concentrate on driving safely and to time.  The job was moderately stressful as it was.  Then, in order to save money, came the widespread conversion to what was then termed one-man operation (because almost all staff then were men) and the driver took fares and had responsibility for everything else.  Some gained a little extra pay for this and some didn't.  All gained a significantly raised level of workplace stress and the service slowed down and became less attractive.  Buses were already in decline but could have come back from the brink.  They didn't.  Since the 1950s there has been a steady decline against rising private car ownership and use.  Only the advent of smart ticketing relieving the driver of most fare-taking duties has helped in any way.

 

A lesson has not been learned here from the road-based sector of the industry.  While the DafT and other "suits" sit in their offices and make use of their private or company cars to crunch numbers the customer base is asking where the staff have gone.  People need people.  And yes that costs money which the DafT seem hell-bent on excising from the system literally at any cost.

 

London Underground has been driver-only for some years.  But they do not carry wheelchairs (with some very limited exceptions) and the network is not especially user-friendly for many with disabilities of many kinds.  Guards could only ever provide limited help as they were not roving staff; stations were often only accessible by lifts, stairs or escalators though some are now fully or partially accessible to wheelchair users.  The network will never fully comply with DDA legislation in terms of making every train and every station accessible.

 

Southern requires someone on the back over and above the driver.  DOO(P) trains might be considered safe based upon a no-incident record.  Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.  It might only take one event or court ruling to force a change in thinking.  DOO(P) creates a great deal more pressure on the driver in an industry where stress levels are already critically high and result in significant lost-time sickness.  It may well not be the most appropriate option for every franchise, every route or every TOC.  One size does not fit all.  I have several T-shirts which prove that!

[caradoc]

Here's the reason why Continental trains are still staffed: guards can walk the train, as they can close the doors everywhere, not just the last cab. In fact, there's very few trains (at least here in NL) where you can close the doors from the cab at all. So, should DfT ever have the insight not to take the current UK situation/regulations as the all-holy gospel, and actually look abroad to practices there, they can learn that the UK can benefit from lessons learned on the Continent, to the benefit of UK rail travellers. I guess it's too much to ask really, isn't it

 

*noconfidence*

 

Many UK multiple units do in fact have door control panels at several locations on the train, so we are not quite so far behind our wonderful Continental cousins as some believe; In fact, in matters of overall rail safety the UK is streets ahead of practically everywhere else on the planet.

I find the continual denigration of UK rail compared to the Continent, often on the basis of limited, if not non-existent, actual knowledge, extremely tiresome.

[Coryton]

Many UK multiple units do in fact have door control panels at several locations on the train, so we are not quite so far behind our wonderful Continental cousins as 

 

Indeed. Though I have come across trains where the guard has to operate doors from the rear cab area and believe it still goes on, I think all the non-DOO trains I currently use have the doors operated from one of the passenger doors.

 

Many of them were built like this. The Arriva Trains Wales 150's have had (at some point) door controls added by passenger doors. As have FGW HSTs.

 

The first time I came across a corridor train where the guard never made an appearance was on Merseyrail in the 80's, and that came as a surprise.

 

In fact, in matters of overall rail safety the UK is streets ahead of practically everywhere else on the planet.

I find the continual denigration of UK rail compared to the Continent, often on the basis of limited, if not non-existent, actual knowledge, extremely tiresome.

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen official studies attempting to use comparisons with other European systems to see if we could be doing things better. Difficult to make direct comparisons of course.

 

I did come across a story a while ago that when the British rail system was in decline some consultants from France were engaged to suggest ways of reversing the decline. Their conclusions was that the French railways were doing better than the British because France was the right shape.

 

Many UK multiple units do in fact have door control panels at several locations on the train, so we are not quite so far behind our wonderful Continental cousins as some believe; In fact, in matters of overall rail safety the UK is streets ahead of practically everywhere else on the planet.

I find the continual denigration of UK rail compared to the Continent, often on the basis of limited, if not non-existent, actual knowledge, extremely tiresome.

 

 

[Chameleon]

It strikes me as unlikely, the drivers union has just rolled over and decided to play nice for no real reason. They have lost several days pay through strikes so the members will want to see a tangible solution, especially if there's no extra money involved (not such a huge deal these days as anything extra usually puts drivers into a higher tax bracket).

[The Stationmaster]

There are some very good commercial arguments for having an 'on-train' presence but in my view they are commercial and not operational arguments - revenue protection is clearly an important area (which is why our DOO branchline trains have Conductors aboard at certain times of day) and customer assistance and information is another and both of these are particularly important on longer distance services.

 

As far as comparisons with continental systems are concerned they are I think valid in some respects especially when comparing engineering maintenance costs and indeed when comparing the particular cost of the old pattern of UK wage structure cost with the old pattern of structure on most continental systems where the working week could be rostered over any of the 7 days of the weeks.  However as Mike Storey instanced above when you get down to more detailed comparisons on traincrew in particular you find the picture is wildly different.  SNCF is one of the most bureaucratically managed railways in Europe with amazing ways of accounting for cost which make the principle of managing in chimneys look like a beginner's faint attempts, as is their way of measuring the efficiency and viability of individual trains while rolling stock utilisation is laughable.

 

While I think SNCF is in many ways the worst many other systems also have their shortcomings and I find laughable repeated suggestions that continental (railways) are better than British - that is a nonsense.  The reality is a mixture but in many areas BR was light years ahead of all the mainland European administrations in terms of overall efficiencies and the privatisation of Britain's railway has not changed that although some European concerns have caught up.  Unlike most members of this forum I have seen a lot of it at close quarters having worked very closely with several European mainland operators and having experience of dealing with most of them in regular conferences.   Perhaps rather tellingly I found when working in Australia that the separation of operations and infrastructure in NSW - where I was working - was not only similar to the British pattern but the Track Access Conditions were strangely, and comfortably, familiar.  Most unlike getting involved with SNCF where not only are they a standing joke in French industry and on the part of management consultants but their organisation also had a familiar feeling as it was very similar to the way BR had been 30 years previously but had long since moved on from.

 

However I must say that if various of us ex British railway folk had been employed on SNCF conditions we'd have loved having the free company provided flat (apartment) in a nice area of the city where we worked plus the sort of expense allowances and working hours which would make us weep with envy were we so inclined, and all supported as part of a massive Govt funded highly expensive organisation.  I have always had considerable respect for the railway professionalism of many in SNCB but I still find it hard to understand an organisation where your religion and native tongue/where you were born can be as important a factor in deciding who gets a job or promotion as your ability to actually do the job, and your head of the organisation can carry on being as corrupt as anyone you care to name (until eventually caught).   I'm not saying British is necessarily best but it's a very long way from being the worst.