Southern Rail Franchise

[Coryton]

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. 

 

And they have HSTs! (Sort of).

[Mike Storey]

Of note today, on the Andrew Marr show, Transport Secretary Grayling said (not a quote but as much as I recall) " Of course there needs to be just as many staff (if not more) on the railways today, to serve the increasing number of passengers and those with additional needs, but some of them need to be doing a different job to the one they are doing today." If he is sincere, that statement is probably A Good Thing? (notwithstanding the need to protect those people's pay and conditions at least in transition).

 

Hopeful, maybe? But he then spoiled it a bit by insisting that the RMT had been refusing to enter discussions, when, by all accounts, they had been refused access to the talks held with ASLE&F. A bit silly to still play games when the facts are out there - that's the only bit RMT peeps will have heard, despite the good news above. But he also defended the use of a management contract (due to TL and London Bridge works) and that it was cheaper for the state to take the risk than ask a private company to do so (interesting from a Tory, but welcome) and stated openly that GTR have lost money on the contract due to the dispute. Marr, unfortunately, still pursued the "why not let the private sector take the risk?" argument, when he had already answered it. So a curate's egg of an interview, but overall positive, which may explain why Wilkinson has been quiet for a bit.

[The Stationmaster]

And they have HSTs! (Sort of).

 

Oh yes, and rather oddly I had a minor role in some of the goings-on with those as we hosted an Australian 'ASLE&F' party at depot level prior to their introduction in Australia so I probably inadvertently helped in making sure the staff side were far better versed in their knowledge of the train and its operation (not withstanding considerable differences) than were the management they subsequently negotiated with.  Strangely the union in that case seemed to do their best yo make sure their people were far better briefed from a practical, everyday, viewpoint than the management bothered to become.

[jjb1970]

Unfortunately the RMT have decided to present this as a dispute about safety. They have every right to defend their members jobs and T&C's (just as the employers have every right to seek changes if they want to) and they have a pretty strong case to stress the customer service benefits of having a second person on-board. By deciding to emphasise safety they've decided to use the one argument which is just not defensible I think. I think most people would like a second person on-board, but that person does not have to be a guard. And I suspect that most people if asked whether they'd want their DOO train to be cancelled if no second person is available or run as DOO would want to continue as a DOO train. I think most people would only want that flexibility for exceptional circumstances when the second person is not available but I really see no benefit to anybody in cancelling a train if it can safely operate without the second person.

[royaloak]

The McNulty report was rubbished for its incompetently flawed and highly naive external comparisons. 

Can anyone explain why the McNulty report had to be withheld and re-written when we had a change of Government?

Surely a report with an open question should arrive at the same conclusions regardless of Government!

[Mike Storey]

Can anyone explain why the McNulty report had to be withheld and re-written when we had a change of Government?

Surely a report with an open question should arrive at the same conclusions regardless of Government!

 

No. We could only speculate, not explain. You need to write to your MP on that one.

[royaloak]

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.

I have read through it and agree 100% with your conclusions.

 

That is quite a good Press release from the RMT, lets see if any of the National papers runs with it?

[royaloak]

No. We could only speculate, not explain. You need to write to your MP on that one.

I have, twice, first time I didnt get a reply, the second time I got the normal confidentiality cowmanure.

[royaloak]

Unfortunately the RMT have decided to present this as a dispute about safety. They have every right to defend their members jobs and T&C's (just as the employers have every right to seek changes if they want to) and they have a pretty strong case to stress the customer service benefits of having a second person on-board. By deciding to emphasise safety they've decided to use the one argument which is just not defensible I think. I think most people would like a second person on-board, but that person does not have to be a guard. And I suspect that most people if asked whether they'd want their DOO train to be cancelled if no second person is available or run as DOO would want to continue as a DOO train. I think most people would only want that flexibility for exceptional circumstances when the second person is not available but I really see no benefit to anybody in cancelling a train if it can safely operate without the second person.

As I have mentioned 50 times now, the while 'run without a guard during disruption' is a cop out, Southern are running trains daily without an OBS on board when there is no disruption, why?

 

The problem is easily solved by decent diagramming keeping the driver and guard together the whole shift, but of course that solves the one problem which is the whole reason for binning the Guards grade isnt it so people would rather ignore the simple fact that the 'problem' need be nothing of the sort.

[royaloak]

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?

Southerns OBSs have each been given a letter stating that they are to stop their customer service duties on approach to each station and go to the doors so they can see if anyone needs their help, which sort of flies in the face of what we were told about this OBS role being more customer service focused because the OBS didnt have to do the doors at every station, now they do so where is the improvement?

[Grovenor]

go to the doors so they can see if anyone needs their help,

Which sounds just like customer service to me.

Regards

[royaloak]

Which sounds just like customer service to me.

Regards

Just like a guard does now, so why change it?

[phil-b259]

As I have mentioned 50 times now, the while 'run without a guard during disruption' is a cop out, Southern are running trains daily without an OBS on board when there is no disruption, why?

 

The problem is easily solved by decent diagramming keeping the driver and guard together the whole shift, but of course that solves the one problem which is the whole reason for binning the Guards grade isnt it so people would rather ignore the simple fact that the 'problem' need be nothing of the sort.

That presumes you have either (1) sufficient staff in the first place or (2) staff are prepared to work overtime to cover the gaps.

 

It's long been a given that within the industry, TOCs have been able to rely on a certain amount of overtime to run with less staff than they actually need - all very good when things are fine between staff and management but with potentially disastrous consiquences if it goes wrong.

 

Thus one of the most damaging things about this whole episode is the complete breakdown in trust between 'the management' (which is generally not Drivers / OBSs direct manager) and frontline staff. Had the RMT been willing to compromise (as ASLEF seem to have done) then industrial relations might have not plunged to the state where staff simply do not want to be at work - with many looking for a way out.

 

As such I suspect that a lot of the services running without OBSs is a reflection of simply not having the staff available. From a ordinary passenger perspective, while having an OBS is desirable, if running in DOO mode means the service is not cancelled then that is a price worth paying.

 

The best thing that could happen is the RMT acept that they have lost the war. Yes it was a battle worth fighting (to protect staff wages and T&Cs) - though perhaps not for as long as they did, but it's now time to move on. Less public ranting and more behind the scenes diplomacy plus a bit more civility from all sides, would hopefully lead to a gradual improvement in staff morale - which translates into more of a willingness to do overtime or stay with the company.

 

The more staff Southern are able to recruit / retain and the more staff that wish to do overtime, the less likely it becomes that 'staff shortage' is what leads to an OBS not being on board. Ultimately I'm sure everyone wants to get to a position where 'un foresable circumstances' is genuinely restricted to staff taken sick at the last minute or where an infrastructure fault has masively disrupted the service with crews and trains all out of position.

 

That won't happen overnight of course and in truth things won't probably get back to where they should be until after the franchise is re-tendered and new senior management can come in, untainted by their previous action

[royaloak]

If Southern had enough staff (of both grades) then full crew working is very easy to instigate, therefore if you have a driver you also have a guard, do you not understand the concept because you seem to ignore it?

It works on SWT very well indeed.

 

Southern dont want more staff, they want less because thats the only way realistic amounts of money can be saved.

Why dont Southern have enough OBS?

Do you think it might be because they are deliberately allowing the numbers to drop so they can make the gullible people think its the staffs fault when its actually a deliberate Management action?

 

Why are Southern able to carry enough spare drivers to guard against last minute sickness but not enough OBS?

 

Oh and what ASLEF have done isnt compromise its surrender!

 

Lets see how the vote oops I mean referendum goes shall we?

Of course as its a referendum instead of a proper vote ASLEF can impose the 'deal' on their members regardless of their members wishes.

 

When the Management Contract (it isnt in any way, shape or form a franchise) is replaced the OBS will be displaced unless there is a Court case brought by some of the Disability groups, otherwise its bye bye second person on board whatever they are called.

[Derekl]

The Stationmaster:

 

"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."

 

I can easily see the "blindingly obvious" - it is your failure to do so that concerns me.

 

I am sorry that you are getting “fed up” – I don’t do so in that I would rather the discussion proceeded to some sort of conclusion on civilised lines, but I point out again that you clearly stated that “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”, and it does concern me (rather than making me “fed up”) that you do not address the issues.

I have made it quite clear that I can see that DOO works in some circumstances – I am not sure that it works in all, but that is not the issue in this conversation, which is more simply that in response to the italics quote above and quite reasonably, I pointed out that there were 4 incidents (I am not sure whether they were “operational safety” incidents, but I would have thought that an incident that results in injury is of concern) that occurred on the departure of DOO operated trains. Those 4 reported incidents are facts, and facts which you have not addressed, obviously being more interested in being “fed up”, although it is open to you to suggest that DOO was not responsible which might be a rational response to having your attention drawn to these incidents.

 

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

 

I have already said that I agree that DOO can be safe and is safely operated in some envirteonments and I have never suggested otherwise: the only point I made and have now made a number of times is that your suggestion that there were no DOO related incidents was wrong.

 

"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."

 

You can, of course, categorise an accident of this sort as a “door incident” and thus unrelated to DOO, but it really does not take a genius to work out that a “door incident” on a DOO train may well be related to DOO.

Your suggestion that the Hayes accident would have occurred in any event is interesting: the 60 year old female passenger arrived at around 13:17 as the door was about to close, but placed her hand between the closing door leaves. That did not interrupt the door close confirmation and the driver was able to take power and the train moved, dragging the passenger along the platform as a result of which she suffered injury, although fortunately, as she fell, her wrist and hand were removed from the door.

 

If a guard had been on the train dealing with dispatch in the way they do here in the West Midlands that would simply not have been possible: he/she would have closed passenger doors, waited and observed until all had been closed and by looking down the train be able to see there were no problems such as passengers adjacent to the train being present, before closing the guard’s door and giving the signal. I note that the guards keep the window open and watch as the train departs (London Midland and Chiltern), so this would simply not be possible. It would have made a difference – you may like to suggest otherwise, but I simply cannot accept that, having read the report. There is no question of reacting quickly enough – the train would not have been signaled away - it is simply nonsense to suggest that there was any issue on reaction time - the train would not have been started.

 

I am now rather wondering whether you have read the report before making your assessment: the report contains CCTV image pictures which show no platform staff (not several, as you suggest – maybe there are some outside the CCTV, but the passenger attempts to board towards the rear of the train and the CCTV). The accident was reported to a member of station staff in the ticket office: the passenger was helped by members of the public on the platform - if there were station staff other than ticket office would they not have been assisting: where do you get the idea that there were several members of staff on the platform, given the evidence that there were none: “I can only repeat facts?” you say above….mmmm

 

Key points:

• this is clearly a DOO incident that would not have occurred had the train had a guard (unless he/she failed in duty)
• the accident involved a 60 year old female passenger at around lunch time, to deal with snarky remarks elsewhere about late night drunken incidents
• your assessment is inaccurate as concerns station staff and the circumstances

"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……. "

 

Yes, people will be stupid and make mistakes, yours that there were no reported DOO related incidents is one, if not safety critical. The industry does have to make an allowance for the risk of people making misjudgements or mistakes – these are not necessarily stupidity, but may simply be the wrong decision taken too quickly under pressure. Systems need to cope with that.

 

"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."

 

I am not sure what this is about – I really hope it is not a suggestion that we should not be making proper provision for disabled people on trains (or anywhere). 

[The Stationmaster]

As I have mentioned 50 times now, the while 'run without a guard during disruption' is a cop out, Southern are running trains daily without an OBS on board when there is no disruption, why?

 

The problem is easily solved by decent diagramming keeping the driver and guard together the whole shift, but of course that solves the one problem which is the whole reason for binning the Guards grade isnt it so people would rather ignore the simple fact that the 'problem' need be nothing of the sort.

 

Regrettably, as we found many years ago, synchronised diagramming does not solve shortages - be they of Guards or Drivers.  It can cause added costs in some circumstances, especially where Drivers had formal PN breaks and where prep and disposal times are involved but equally it can potentially (and in most cases actually) achieve savings in diagram preparation costs which is one reason why it was so widely adopted on BR.  In fact to me it always seems a bit strange when non-syncronised diagrams are used having spent so many years working with them.

 

 

But, I repeat, it doesn't matter whether turns are synchronised or not if you haven't got anybody to man them and splitting them up (in current operations terms) can be a supervisor's only way of actually getting jobs - or parts of jobs - covered.

 

The Stationmaster:

 

"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."

 

I can easily see the "blindingly obvious" - it is your failure to do so that concerns me.

 

I am sorry that you are getting “fed up” – I don’t do so in that I would rather the discussion proceeded to some sort of conclusion on civilised lines, but I point out again that you clearly stated that “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”, and it does concern me (rather than making me “fed up”) that you do not address the issues.

I have made it quite clear that I can see that DOO works in some circumstances – I am not sure that it works in all, but that is not the issue in this conversation, which is more simply that in response to the italics quote above and quite reasonably, I pointed out that there were 4 incidents (I am not sure whether they were “operational safety” incidents, but I would have thought that an incident that results in injury is of concern) that occurred on the departure of DOO operated trains. Those 4 reported incidents are facts, and facts which you have not addressed, obviously being more interested in being “fed up”, although it is open to you to suggest that DOO was not responsible which might be a rational response to having your attention drawn to these incidents.

 

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

 

I have already said that I agree that DOO can be safe and is safely operated in some envirteonments and I have never suggested otherwise: the only point I made and have now made a number of times is that your suggestion that there were no DOO related incidents was wrong.

 

"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."

 

You can, of course, categorise an accident of this sort as a “door incident” and thus unrelated to DOO, but it really does not take a genius to work out that a “door incident” on a DOO train may well be related to DOO.

Your suggestion that the Hayes accident would have occurred in any event is interesting: the 60 year old female passenger arrived at around 13:17 as the door was about to close, but placed her hand between the closing door leaves. That did not interrupt the door close confirmation and the driver was able to take power and the train moved, dragging the passenger along the platform as a result of which she suffered injury, although fortunately, as she fell, her wrist and hand were removed from the door.

 

If a guard had been on the train dealing with dispatch in the way they do here in the West Midlands that would simply not have been possible: he/she would have closed passenger doors, waited and observed until all had been closed and by looking down the train be able to see there were no problems such as passengers adjacent to the train being present, before closing the guard’s door and giving the signal. I note that the guards keep the window open and watch as the train departs (London Midland and Chiltern), so this would simply not be possible. It would have made a difference – you may like to suggest otherwise, but I simply cannot accept that, having read the report. There is no question of reacting quickly enough – the train would not have been signaled away - it is simply nonsense to suggest that there was any issue on reaction time - the train would not have been started.

 

I am now rather wondering whether you have read the report before making your assessment: the report contains CCTV image pictures which show no platform staff (not several, as you suggest – maybe there are some outside the CCTV, but the passenger attempts to board towards the rear of the train and the CCTV). The accident was reported to a member of station staff in the ticket office: the passenger was helped by members of the public on the platform - if there were station staff other than ticket office would they not have been assisting: where do you get the idea that there were several members of staff on the platform, given the evidence that there were none: “I can only repeat facts?” you say above….mmmm

 

Key points:

• this is clearly a DOO incident that would not have occurred had the train had a guard (unless he/she failed in duty)
• the accident involved a 60 year old female passenger at around lunch time, to deal with snarky remarks elsewhere about late night drunken incidents
• your assessment is inaccurate as concerns station staff and the circumstances

"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……. "

 

Yes, people will be stupid and make mistakes, yours that there were no reported DOO related incidents is one, if not safety critical. The industry does have to make an allowance for the risk of people making misjudgements or mistakes – these are not necessarily stupidity, but may simply be the wrong decision taken too quickly under pressure. Systems need to cope with that.

 

"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."

 

I am not sure what this is about – I really hope it is not a suggestion that we should not be making proper provision for disabled people on trains (or anywhere). 

 

I've told you the facts - if you can't understand what I have repeated ad nauseam I've no more to say.

 

There have never been any operational safety incidents on Britain's railways which have attributed to or exacerbated by DOO train working - fact, simple as that.  You either believe the facts or you don't and it appears that you don't and are unable to quote any examples at all to the contrary.  You seem perhaps to not understand what I mean by repeatedly referring to certain 'door dragging' (to use the vernacular expression incidents - these are not operational safety incidents and they lie, and always have, in different reporting categories and as yet there appears to be no proper statistical evidence to suggest they are any more frequent with DOO(P) trains than on trains with Guards or running from staffed stations where station staff are responsible for making the decision that it is safe to close train doors.

 

I repeat DOO is operationally safe - end of.

[phil-b259]

If Southern had enough staff (of both grades) then full crew working is very easy to instigate, therefore if you have a driver you also have a guard, do you not understand the concept because you seem to ignore it?

It works on SWT very well indeed.

 

Indeed it does - until the Guard goes sick at the last minute of the service is totally up the spout - when I and many others actually prefer a DOO train to no train at all. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? The railway exists to transport people from A to B and given DOO is safe (subject to appropriate mitigating measures) it is perfectly reasonable for a TOC to try everything possible to cater for that need.

 

All things being equal, the stated position of Southern "If due to unforeseeable circumstances, we are unable to roster a OBS the train will run as DOO " is perfectly reasonable position to take - and rather than wasting time generating worst case scare stories of safety the RMT should have been trying to pin down what 'unforeseeable circumstances' actually means.

 

My take would be situations like those I have previously outlined - the OBS being taken ill and nobody available to do overtime to cover them for example or the service gone into absolute meltdown with staff and trains in a total mess. On the other hand not employing sufficient OBS staff to cover all diagrams (including taking into account natural wastage, training, holiday entitlement, etc) is not an 'unforeseen' circumstances.

 

So yes if you plan to run every train with an OBS then you will need the same number of drivers and OBSs employed - but that I'd not how things work in reality. For starters, in the metro area, a Southern services operate pure DOO (but with staffed stations) so the company will always have more drivers than OBSs on their books. Secondly some of those metro drivers will also have route knowledge which allows them to go beyond the suburban area into 'OBS land' if I can call it that. Thus if a Southern driver goes sick there is more chance of finding another one to cover by shuffling diagrams and / of overtime.

 

Unfortunately due to the intransigence of the RMT - who quite clearly are not going to get ScotRail type guarantees on ANY future UK franchise / management contract (without a change in the political party forming the Government) Southern are able to take a very liberal view of 'unforeseen circumstances'.

 

Oh and what ASLEF have done isnt compromise its surrender!

 

Lets see how the vote oops I mean referendum goes shall we?

Of course as its a referendum instead of a proper vote ASLEF can impose the 'deal' on their members regardless of their members wishes.

 

No it's not - its called living in the real world.

 

I'm sorry the RMT have a severe case of tunnel vision - they can only see the world through the prism of a socialist utopia that (i) will never happen and (ii) where it has been tried has actually only been able to exist through state repression.

 

FACT:- DOO is safe

FACT:- The traditional role of the Guard is pretty much redundant on the modern railway

FACT:- To survive in a changing environment organisations and people need to adapt. What happens to signallers when signal boxes are shut and what do you think is going to happen to all the signal maintenance staff when (as is pretty much inevitable) the railway does away with lineside signals and train detection systems in favour of ECTS via GSM-R? Yes some will be made we redundant and others will have to evolve into doing something else to remain in the industry.

 

All ASLEF have done is read the situation correctly and been practical about things. Yes the fact they have done a deal that may well be seen by the RMT as a betrayal - but that only shows how out of touch the RMT are. British Rail was dismembered a long time ago now, significantly reducing the unions influence. In addition to which when asked to set the agenda for the country in general elections, voters have consistently rejected the socialist 'all for one and one for all' ethos that underpins the RMTs outlook on so many things for well over 35 years now.

 

Ultimately ASLEFs job is to look after its members interests - as they themselves see them. It's not ASELFs job to act as a surrogate mother for the RMT and start picking fights because the RMT is not making headway in their dispute, nor is it bound to deliberately hold off from doing a deal for fear of 'undermining' a fellow trade union. Such socialist thinking is not how the world works these days and it's about time the RMT woke up to it.

 

Finally what ASLEF does internally with respect to consulting with its members and the wording on the ballots etc is entirely up to them and none of the RMTs business. Just because the RMT doesn't like what it may have done does not mean they or their members can go round insinuating there is something wrong with how ASLEF run their affairs.

 

When the Management Contract (it isnt in any way, shape or form a franchise) is replaced the OBS will be displaced unless there is a Court case brought by some of the Disability groups, otherwise its bye bye second person on board whatever they are called.

 

Firstly, I don't think anyone on here disputes the fact that the current Southern operation Is a management contract let by the DfT and which keeps the Southern management on a tight leash. However given when the contract expires it will be retendered as a conventional franchise, it's easier to keep using the term 'franchise' to cover the current situation too.

 

Secondly, disability groups and at least one select committee of MPs have already raised the apparent contradiction between disability rights legislation and DOO so it's not a case of 'if' the DfT will have to take action, but when. However I have to say where is the voice of the RMT on such matters? - answer it's conspicuous by its absence. Rather than wasting 10 months banging on about 'DOO being unsafe' (a position which has been totally discredited by 30 years of practical experience) the RMT should have been shouting from the rooftops about the disability rights implications - as unlike 'safety' such issues cannot be refuted by those in Government.

 

Thirdly - as you seem to know for sure what will happen post 2018, why don't you use that knowledge to pick some wining lottery numbers and retire on the proceedings (I know that's a rather flippant comment by the way). Yes I do accept that as time goes on OBS staff will no doubt suffer from the lack of negotiating clout the RMT had with Guards, but that does not mean it's an 'all or nothing' game as regards the next franchise specification. Again if the RMT helps various disability groups and concerned MPs to keep the pressure up then attempts to reduce / get rid of the OBS role can be successfully resisted. What won't protect the OBS role is the RMT carrying on with their increasingly futile industrial action or the discredited broken record that they call 'safety'.

 

As I have said from the start, there are many valid reasons why having two members of staff on board a train is desirable - but the RMTs approach thus far has actually made it less likely to happen.

[royaloak]

Just for clarity are you a train driver who currently works DOO?

[phil-b259]

Just for clarity are you a train driver who currently works DOO?

No* - are you? (If you have mentioned your job previously then please acept my apologies for asking)

 

The views of drivers and Guards / OBS are naturally important in this discussion - however they are not the be all and end all when it comes to DOO - The stationmasters comments on past practice being just as important to the debate, as indeed are the pros, cons of mitigating measures.

 

As such your contributions are welcome and (contrary to the impression you may have developed) you have raised some very worthy arguements against aspects of DOO, or perhaps more accurately, things that have yet to be adiquately addressed.

 

Thus, as the saying goes "I May Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It". All I request is that you extend the same curtiousy to others - as infuriating as we may be on occasion.

 

*I work in infrastructure maintanence (signalling) and as such am a fully paid up member of the RMT. Hence my view that the RMT was perfectly right to launch action to protect its members - just as I hope they would do with mine. At the same time I deplore their political stance and refusal to deal with realities - for example keep banging on about rail re-nationalisation, which any sane person knows is never going to happen while we have the 'Blue' (or even a 'pink') party running the country, and their inability to sense when a strategic withdrawal / reassessment of the aims of a campaign is required.

[Derekl]

The Stationmaster:

 

"I've told you the facts - if you can't understand what I have repeated ad nauseam I've no more to say.

 

There have never been any operational safety incidents on Britain's railways which have attributed to or exacerbated by DOO train working - fact, simple as that.  You either believe the facts or you don't and it appears that you don't and are unable to quote any examples at all to the contrary.  You seem perhaps to not understand what I mean by repeatedly referring to certain 'door dragging' (to use the vernacular expression incidents - these are not operational safety incidents and they lie, and always have, in different reporting categories and as yet there appears to be no proper statistical evidence to suggest they are any more frequent with DOO(P) trains than on trains with Guards or running from staffed stations where station staff are responsible for making the decision that it is safe to close train doors.

 

I repeat DOO is operationally safe - end of."

 

I am sorry - you have clearly ignored the facts - you actually had the account of the accident at Hayes wrong and I note you have not troubled yourself to explain why - I presume you were quite happy to comment on the "facts" of the accident without troubling to read the report.

 

I can understand quite easily what you say ad nauseum (your words, but I am in full agreement with that description), but you appear to have been inaccurate in a number of respects that I have pointed out and you have not addressed.

 

I am quite capable of reading and interpreting such documentation (indeed, that is my job): you quite clearly do not appear to have bothered and then frankly demean yourself by resorting to being rude and offensive, unnecessary in a reasonable debate.

 

I do not see how it matters what and incident is categorized as technically: as far as those using the service are concerned that is of little import if as a result of some process adopted they suffer life changing injuries. As I pointed out, the Hayes accident which resulted in unpleasant injuries but could have been worse does not seem likely to have occurred had the train been dispatched under guard control. Having got the facts of the accident wrong, you now do not address that issue, merely asserting that DOO is safe "end of". That does not accord with the findings of the report of the Chief Inspector of Railways you quoted earlier (have you actually read it?) which is to the effect that DOO can be safe provided conditions can be filled, although what they are is not clear.

 

I happen to have agreed that DOO clearly can be safe - as I have said London Overground appears to be operating DOO safely (so far), but clearly that cannot apply to all conditions (I think you have said so as well in a post above or possibly in another thread, so you actually clearly appreciate that and you assessment of DOO as safe "end of" is not your earlier opinion).

 

There have been injury related accidents on DOO trains, whether categorized as "operational safety incidents" or not: it seems to me that if an accident results in injury, categorization aside, it is worth finding out what caused it with a view to future avoidance, in the way that railway safety has developed over many years. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring accidents because they are classified as non-operational is not helpful or productive.

 

It is also irrelevant whether there are accidents in guard or station staff dispatched trains. Clearly one would expect these to be investigated and any necessary steps taken, but an attempt to compare those with dispatch accidents involving DOO is a waste of time: it is only because you want to compare the incidence of dispatch problems to bolster your argument that you raise the issue.

 

The DOO dispatch accidents do need to be considered so that if DOO is not a causal factor then they can be ignored: but if DOO is, as it clearly appears to have been at Hayes and Harlington, then the conditions necessary to reduce risk need to be identified.

 

I don't really need a reply from you. You have based replies on "facts" which are simply wrong and you have been offensive about it, which is not necessary. I had a deal of respect for your postings and apparent breadth of knowledge in the past, but it appears that you have a little difficulty in participating in rational and constructive discussion.

 

Note that if you do choose to reply in the snidely offensive terms you have adopted, I am quite happy to continue the debate.

[phil-b259]

The Stationmaster:

 

"I've told you the facts - if you can't understand what I have repeated ad nauseam I've no more to say.

 

There have never been any operational safety incidents on Britain's railways which have attributed to or exacerbated by DOO train working - fact, simple as that.  You either believe the facts or you don't and it appears that you don't and are unable to quote any examples at all to the contrary.  You seem perhaps to not understand what I mean by repeatedly referring to certain 'door dragging' (to use the vernacular expression incidents - these are not operational safety incidents and they lie, and always have, in different reporting categories and as yet there appears to be no proper statistical evidence to suggest they are any more frequent with DOO(P) trains than on trains with Guards or running from staffed stations where station staff are responsible for making the decision that it is safe to close train doors.

 

I repeat DOO is operationally safe - end of."

 

I am sorry - you have clearly ignored the facts - you actually had the account of the accident at Hayes wrong and I note you have not troubled yourself to explain why - I presume you were quite happy to comment on the "facts" of the accident without troubling to read the report.

 

I can understand quite easily what you say ad nauseum (your words, but I am in full agreement with that description), but you appear to have been inaccurate in a number of respects that I have pointed out and you have not addressed.

 

I am quite capable of reading and interpreting such documentation (indeed, that is my job): you quite clearly do not appear to have bothered and then frankly demean yourself by resorting to being rude and offensive, unnecessary in a reasonable debate.

 

I do not see how it matters what and incident is categorized as technically: as far as those using the service are concerned that is of little import if as a result of some process adopted they suffer life changing injuries. As I pointed out, the Hayes accident which resulted in unpleasant injuries but could have been worse does not seem likely to have occurred had the train been dispatched under guard control. Having got the facts of the accident wrong, you now do not address that issue, merely asserting that DOO is safe "end of". That does not accord with the findings of the report of the Chief Inspector of Railways you quoted earlier (have you actually read it?) which is to the effect that DOO can be safe provided conditions can be filled, although what they are is not clear.

 

I happen to have agreed that DOO clearly can be safe - as I have said London Overground appears to be operating DOO safely (so far), but clearly that cannot apply to all conditions (I think you have said so as well in a post above or possibly in another thread, so you actually clearly appreciate that and you assessment of DOO as safe "end of" is not your earlier opinion).

 

There have been injury related accidents on DOO trains, whether categorized as "operational safety incidents" or not: it seems to me that if an accident results in injury, categorization aside, it is worth finding out what caused it with a view to future avoidance, in the way that railway safety has developed over many years. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring accidents because they are classified as non-operational is not helpful or productive.

 

It is also irrelevant whether there are accidents in guard or station staff dispatched trains. Clearly one would expect these to be investigated and any necessary steps taken, but an attempt to compare those with dispatch accidents involving DOO is a waste of time: it is only because you want to compare the incidence of dispatch problems to bolster your argument that you raise the issue.

 

The DOO dispatch accidents do need to be considered so that if DOO is not a causal factor then they can be ignored: but if DOO is, as it clearly appears to have been at Hayes and Harlington, then the conditions necessary to reduce risk need to be identified.

 

I don't really need a reply from you. You have based replies on "facts" which are simply wrong and you have been offensive about it, which is not necessary. I had a deal of respect for your postings and apparent breadth of knowledge in the past, but it appears that you have a little difficulty in participating in rational and constructive discussion.

 

Note that if you do choose to reply in the snidely offensive terms you have adopted, I am quite happy to continue the debate.

 

You keep going on about the Hayes incident when it is totally irrelevant to the fundamental issue at stake here - namely should all trains have a Guard? The RMT say "At all times", while more enlightened minds such as The station master and myself say "No - subject to the correct mitigation being provided".

 

The Hayes incident only proved TWO things:-

 

(1) Train drivers (and maintenance staff, senior management and indeed the lady involved) incorrectly assumed that the door mechanisms (as specified by BR when DOO was introduced on that line) were of such a sensitivity that a person could not have a body part trapped in them and the driver still gain door interlock.

 

(2) That it is vital drivers (or dispatch staff or indeed Guards) check that no-one is in close proximity to the door before moving off.

 

It did NOT prove:-

 

(1)That DOO was unsafe in any shape or form.

 

(2)That DOO lines are somehow inherently more prone to dispatch incidents than Guard operated trains.

 

The RAIBs recommendations were (and I quote):-

 

• The first, addressed to RSSB to review, and if necessary extend, its research into the passenger/train interface to understand passenger behaviour and identify means for deterring members of the public from obstructing train doors.
• The second recommendation is addressed to operators and owners of trains similar to the one involved in the accident at Hayes & Harlington, is intended to continue and expand upon a current review into the practicability of fitting sensitive door edge technology to this type of train.

 

Please take note there is NOTHING in those statements about Guards (or the lack of them)

 

Anyone can sit there and pronounce "well of X, Y and Z had been in place, A, B and C wouldn't have happened - that is not a taxing thing for anyone to do, but is no way to make an informed judgement on anything. In the Hayes case, the RAIB were quite clear in their report - the presences or absence of a Guard (or platform staff) was an irrelevance - what did matter was the design of the door system and the training given to drivers as regards station dispatch. Your continued trying to load on extra 'yes but' into the offical findings does nothing to enhance the points you may be trying to make about statistical analysis.

 

 

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

[The Stationmaster]

The Stationmaster:

 

"I've told you the facts - if you can't understand what I have repeated ad nauseam I've no more to say.

 

There have never been any operational safety incidents on Britain's railways which have attributed to or exacerbated by DOO train working - fact, simple as that.  You either believe the facts or you don't and it appears that you don't and are unable to quote any examples at all to the contrary.  You seem perhaps to not understand what I mean by repeatedly referring to certain 'door dragging' (to use the vernacular expression incidents - these are not operational safety incidents and they lie, and always have, in different reporting categories and as yet there appears to be no proper statistical evidence to suggest they are any more frequent with DOO(P) trains than on trains with Guards or running from staffed stations where station staff are responsible for making the decision that it is safe to close train doors.

 

I repeat DOO is operationally safe - end of."

 

I am sorry - you have clearly ignored the facts - you actually had the account of the accident at Hayes wrong and I note you have not troubled yourself to explain why - I presume you were quite happy to comment on the "facts" of the accident without troubling to read the report.

 

I can understand quite easily what you say ad nauseum (your words, but I am in full agreement with that description), but you appear to have been inaccurate in a number of respects that I have pointed out and you have not addressed.

 

I am quite capable of reading and interpreting such documentation (indeed, that is my job): you quite clearly do not appear to have bothered and then frankly demean yourself by resorting to being rude and offensive, unnecessary in a reasonable debate.

 

I do not see how it matters what and incident is categorized as technically: as far as those using the service are concerned that is of little import if as a result of some process adopted they suffer life changing injuries. As I pointed out, the Hayes accident which resulted in unpleasant injuries but could have been worse does not seem likely to have occurred had the train been dispatched under guard control. Having got the facts of the accident wrong, you now do not address that issue, merely asserting that DOO is safe "end of". That does not accord with the findings of the report of the Chief Inspector of Railways you quoted earlier (have you actually read it?) which is to the effect that DOO can be safe provided conditions can be filled, although what they are is not clear.

 

I happen to have agreed that DOO clearly can be safe - as I have said London Overground appears to be operating DOO safely (so far), but clearly that cannot apply to all conditions (I think you have said so as well in a post above or possibly in another thread, so you actually clearly appreciate that and you assessment of DOO as safe "end of" is not your earlier opinion).

 

There have been injury related accidents on DOO trains, whether categorized as "operational safety incidents" or not: it seems to me that if an accident results in injury, categorization aside, it is worth finding out what caused it with a view to future avoidance, in the way that railway safety has developed over many years. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring accidents because they are classified as non-operational is not helpful or productive.

 

It is also irrelevant whether there are accidents in guard or station staff dispatched trains. Clearly one would expect these to be investigated and any necessary steps taken, but an attempt to compare those with dispatch accidents involving DOO is a waste of time: it is only because you want to compare the incidence of dispatch problems to bolster your argument that you raise the issue.

 

The DOO dispatch accidents do need to be considered so that if DOO is not a causal factor then they can be ignored: but if DOO is, as it clearly appears to have been at Hayes and Harlington, then the conditions necessary to reduce risk need to be identified.

 

I don't really need a reply from you. You have based replies on "facts" which are simply wrong and you have been offensive about it, which is not necessary. I had a deal of respect for your postings and apparent breadth of knowledge in the past, but it appears that you have a little difficulty in participating in rational and constructive discussion.

 

Note that if you do choose to reply in the snidely offensive terms you have adopted, I am quite happy to continue the debate.

 

You've now got a reply - and it's very simple one.  DOO has a c.30 year record of operational safety - whatever the RMT might or might not say (which is no different from what was being said by at least one of the trade unions before DOO was introduced) and whatever anybody else might or might mot say.  That is a fact and there is no evidence to the contrary otherwise you would probably have found it and posted it by now - and you haven't.  I am happy to see quoted a genuine example of an incident where DOO train working has either cause or exacerbated an operational safety failing - more than happy, and equally am prepared to accept being shown as in error but, I have yet to see one such incident quoted.

[Derekl]

Phil-b259: I suppose there is no great harm in baleful comment when you clearly have not read most of my posts – I would normally do so before engaging in vituperative and inaccurate comment.

 

Just to be clear, points in italics are yours: my comment is in normal text:

 

“You keep going on about the Hayes incident when it is totally irrelevant to the fundamental issue at stake here - namely should all trains have a Guard? The RMT say "At all times", while more enlightened minds such as The station master and myself say "No - subject to the correct mitigation being provided".”

 

I did not “keep going on about the Hayes incident” and I have not made any comment on any issues raised by the RMT or expressed an opinion on those, so I am unsure why you mention it. I am not and have never suggested being an advocate for RMT, although I can see some of their concerns.

 

As you might have noticed had you actually troubled yourself to read my posts before telling me what I have said, Stationmaster posted that: “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."

 

I pointed that that there were at least 4 RAIB reports involving injuries when alighting or boarding DOO trains. I made it quite clear that I did not say that the presence of a guard would have made any difference and noted that the Hayes accident was the one which identified the problem with the door closure signal.

 

What I did not say is that these reports suggested DOO might be unsafe (if anything the opposite).

 

Stationmaster responded by saying that he was referring to incidents affecting the safety of the line/train, which seems a little absurd – the issue on DOO is not a risk of collision (I suppose that is what he refers to) but that is quite clearly not a risk – the risk of passenger alighting/boarding incidents on dispatch. He was clearly unaware of those I cited (with links) or had forgotten them.

 

I am at something of a loss to understand how anybody who advocates the extension of DOO would not be a little interested in the reported accidents and how they may affect safety issues.

I have not at any stage said that I thought DOO was unsafe – I merely pointed out that contrary to Stationmaster’s assertion, there had in fact been accidents.

 

I am fully aware that DOO has been operative for years and have said so in a number of my posts.

 

The Hayes incident only proved TWO things:-

 (1) Train drivers (and maintenance staff, senior management and indeed the lady involved) incorrectly assumed that the door mechanisms (as specified by BR when DOO was introduced on that line) were of such a sensitivity that a person could not have a body part trapped in them and the driver still gain door interlock.

 (2) That it is vital drivers (or dispatch staff or indeed Guards) check that no-one is in close proximity to the door before moving off.

 It did NOT prove:-

(1)That DOO was unsafe in any shape or form.

(2)That DOO lines are somehow inherently more prone to dispatch incidents than Guard operated trains.

 

The Hayes incident became an issue because Stationmaster raised it (inaccurately, presumably because he had not read the report) noting that platform staff had discouraged the passenger from joining the train: a bit unlikely as the report does not refer to platform staff – it looks like the closest staff member was in the booking office.

 

The RAIBs recommendations were (and I quote):- 

• The first, addressed to RSSB to review, and if necessary extend, its research into the passenger/train interface to understand passenger behaviour and identify means for deterring members of the public from obstructing train doors.
• The second recommendation is addressed to operators and owners of trains similar to the one involved in the accident at Hayes & Harlington, is intended to continue and expand upon a current review into the practicability of fitting sensitive door edge technology to this type of train.

 Please take note there is NOTHING in those statements about Guards (or the lack of them)

 

I was well aware of the RAIB recommendations: I presume that they decided that such comment was beyond their remit as you have to be pretty dopey not to be able to see that the presence of a guard (or, possibly, platform staff) would have reduced the likelihood (and note, not “prevented”) the incident on the account in the report. I did not say that the Hayes accident proved anything: I only said that it was an accident involving a DOO train: subsequently, prompted by Stationmaster I noted that it was possible that it might not have occurred had there been a guard.

 

I did not suggest that it showed that DOO was unsafe in any shape or form, nor that it showed DOO trains were more prone to dispatch incidents – I have only said that this is a DOO dispatch incident – you put allegations I have not made to criticise – frankly a little irrational.

 

I do wonder just what has been done to sort out the door interface problems on the 165/365 trains, many of which are used in DOO.

 

Anyone can sit there and pronounce "well of X, Y and Z had been in place, A, B and C wouldn't have happened - that is not a taxing thing for anyone to do, but is no way to make an informed judgement on anything. In the Hayes case, the RAIB were quite clear in their report - the presences or absence of a Guard (or platform staff) was an irrelevance - what did matter was the design of the door system and the training given to drivers as regards station dispatch. Your continued trying to load on extra 'yes but' into the offical findings does nothing to enhance the points you may be trying to make about statistical analysis.

 

Sorry, but this is just rubbish: I did not and do not talk of “informed judgments”. I would have thought it was readily apparent on the basis of the account in the RAIB report that a guard presence would probably have decreased the risk. I would have thought that if “anyone” reached any other conclusion, they would have a little logic problem.

 

The RAIB did not discuss the presence of absence of platform staff, so could not dismiss it as an “irrelevance”.

 

I am also not making any points about “statistical analysis” – I only pointed out that Stationmaster was wrong to say that there had been no accidents (or “operational incidents”) involving DOO trains.

 

I have said that I can see that DOO is safely operated in a number of areas: along with the Chief Inspecting Officer and (I think) Stationmaster. I suggest that it is not appropriate in all areas: rather than engaging in an inaccurate attack on me, maybe it would be worth looking at the possible restrictions on its operation and it is just possible that the reported accidents involving DOO might help in identifying those.

 

I have made it quite clear that I can see that DOO as implemented has been safe, and have said so in previous posts which you presumably have not read.

 

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.

[Derekl]

You've now got a reply - and it's very simple one.  DOO has a c.30 year record of operational safety - whatever the RMT might or might not say (which is no different from what was being said by at least one of the trade unions before DOO was introduced) and whatever anybody else might or might mot say.  That is a fact and there is no evidence to the contrary otherwise you would probably have found it and posted it by now - and you haven't.  I am happy to see quoted a genuine example of an incident where DOO train working has either cause or exacerbated an operational safety failing - more than happy, and equally am prepared to accept being shown as in error but, I have yet to see one such incident quoted.

 

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.

[royaloak]

No* - are you? (If you have mentioned your job previously then please acept my apologies for asking)

 

The views of drivers and Guards / OBS are naturally important in this discussion - however they are not the be all and end all when it comes to DOO - The stationmasters comments on past practice being just as important to the debate, as indeed are the pros, cons of mitigating measures.

 

As such your contributions are welcome and (contrary to the impression you may have developed) you have raised some very worthy arguements against aspects of DOO, or perhaps more accurately, things that have yet to be adiquately addressed.

 

Thus, as the saying goes "I May Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It". All I request is that you extend the same curtiousy to others - as infuriating as we may be on occasion.

 

*I work in infrastructure maintanence (signalling) and as such am a fully paid up member of the RMT. Hence my view that the RMT was perfectly right to launch action to protect its members - just as I hope they would do with mine. At the same time I deplore their political stance and refusal to deal with realities - for example keep banging on about rail re-nationalisation, which any sane person knows is never going to happen while we have the 'Blue' (or even a 'pink') party running the country, and their inability to sense when a strategic withdrawal / reassessment of the aims of a campaign is required.

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.