Southern Rail Franchise

[roger440]

Scenario.  A wheelchair user wishes to board a train at Wivelsfield.  The station is staffed but the platforms are not attended.  Whether or not the person requires a travel assistant the net effect is the same.  There is a fair gap between platform and train which requires a ramp to be used.

 

Train stops.  20 seconds is the allowance.  Driver has to secure cab, leave cab, deploy ramp, passenger boards, ramp is stowed, driver returns to cab and prepares to depart.  This takes at least two and possibly three to four minutes.  In the meantime trains behind, which can be running on time but at very close intervals, sight caution or stop signals.  This potentially affects conflicting moves across Keymer Junction as well.   

 

The dwell time might be shortened if a second staff member were on the train whether or not that person is responsible for operating the doors / despatching the train.

 

Southern / GTR  and the unions haven't really grasped this nettle and neither have the other operators who have introduced DOO(P).  We have a mandated requirement to build trains with provision for disabled-access toilets and seating areas yet are making it harder for these people to actually travel on these trains.  

 

This isn't an entirely separate argument to the current disputes.  There is an overlap between a second crew member being carried for safety and for commercial / customer service duties.  One is not exclusive to the other.

The answer to your scenario is the train will be late. Im not entirely sure i grasp the point of your post. Disabled person is assisted, be it by driver, guard or whoever. If its the driver, the delay will be greater. I cant imagine the time saved by someone other than the driver doing it would ever even start to make economic sense?

[jjb1970]

Southern are not removing the second person, so the situation for disabled people will not change. There is the situation that if a second person is not available then the train may run as DOO without the second person in which case then yes a disabled person may have to wait for the following train. That however is no different than if the train is cancelled and they'll probably have a nice journey missing the train without a second person than trying to get onto a crush loaded train that is carrying everybody else from the cancelled first train.

RMT could have fought this based on customer service, worries about disabled access and such like and had much stronger arguments. However they decided to play the safety card and wrap it up with their political agenda, one is pretty groundless and the other has nothing to do with a labour dispute. DafT are coming out of this very badly but the RMT have been woeful too.

[caradoc]

The problem for the RMT is that if they had gone for the passenger assistance reason for retaining Guards, there is no need for that person to actually be a Guard; As has been stated many times door operation by Drivers has existed in the UK for over 30 years with a satisfactory safety record, so the second person on board could be an Assistant Ticket Inspector, On-Board Assistant, or any other title management dreams up. I fully understand the RMT's duty to protect the jobs and conditions of its members, but perhaps their angle should have been to accept DOO but only with full retention of pay and conditions for all existing Guards, and no redundancies, while ASLEF (and the RMT for their Driver members) would agree suitable reward for their increased duties. 

[The Stationmaster]

The problem for the RMT is that if they had gone for the passenger assistance reason for retaining Guards, there is no need for that person to actually be a Guard; As has been stated many times door operation by Drivers has existed in the UK for over 30 years with a satisfactory safety record, so the second person on board could be an Assistant Ticket Inspector, On-Board Assistant, or any other title management dreams up. I fully understand the RMT's duty to protect the jobs and conditions of its members, but perhaps their angle should have been to accept DOO but only with full retention of pay and conditions for all existing Guards, and no redundancies, while ASLEF (and the RMT for their Driver members) would agree suitable reward for their increased duties. 

 

And this is really where it was all helped to go wrong right from the start by the way Wilkinson behaved in his public utterances and presumably in his instructions in Southern's management contract (plus the way it might be phrased in the specs for other franchise renewals)  - red rag to a TU bull in effect (and consequences).

[lmsforever]

​Back to the drawing board I think the DFT have to come face to face with the RMT and try to sort out this mess to the benefit of passengers ,don't lets forget this is a customer based service.Think that the unions have forgotten this and look on the railways as a personal service for the benefit of members ,to often they get to big for their boots and it all goes pearshape.Management have to shape up as well with some new ideas and possibly better skills in man management .Having been on the receiving end of so called management during my work career I can sympathise with the drivers guards but to seriously inconvienence passengers is surely wrong in this day and age.Mediation must be made mandatory and striking illegal this will stop certain persons pursuing agendas that do not effectively represent their members.Comments by both sides welcome.

[caradoc]

Although strikes in a service industry such as the railways cause huge disruption to the customer, and can lead to loss of business for the industry, I don't believe that such strikes should be made illegal, or even more difficult to call legally than the current arrangements. In the case of Southern, both sides, unions and management (which includes DfT/those pulling the strings in the shadows) are going to have to compromise and somehow meet in the middle; Sadly, there seems little sign of that happening at present.

[phil-b259]

Scenario.  A wheelchair user wishes to board a train at Wivelsfield.  The station is staffed but the platforms are not attended.  Whether or not the person requires a travel assistant the net effect is the same.  There is a fair gap between platform and train which requires a ramp to be used.

 

Train stops.  20 seconds is the allowance.  Driver has to secure cab, leave cab, deploy ramp, passenger boards, ramp is stowed, driver returns to cab and prepares to depart.  This takes at least two and possibly three to four minutes.  In the meantime trains behind, which can be running on time but at very close intervals, sight caution or stop signals.  This potentially affects conflicting moves across Keymer Junction as well.   

 

The dwell time might be shortened if a second staff member were on the train whether or not that person is responsible for operating the doors / despatching the train.

 

Southern / GTR  and the unions haven't really grasped this nettle and neither have the other operators who have introduced DOO(P).  We have a mandated requirement to build trains with provision for disabled-access toilets and seating areas yet are making it harder for these people to actually travel on these trains.  

 

This isn't an entirely separate argument to the current disputes.  There is an overlap between a second crew member being carried for safety and for commercial / customer service duties.  One is not exclusive to the other.

 

Given the platforms at Wivlesfield require the user to negotiate at least two sets of stairs between road level and the platforms as the station lacks any step free access, the scenario you paint is not going to happen - if a disabled passenger did want to travel to or from Wivlesfield then Southern would have to provide a Taxi to Haywards Heath or Burgess Hill. A more logical example to use might be Hassocks or Burgess Hill (both of which have step free access to both platforms - but both stations are staffed for the majority of the day (due to them being gated) and at BH I have seen the gateline attendant come down and setup the ramp for a wheelchair user boarding a Thameslink service - which have NEVER had Guards / OBS on board

 

However on a more general level you do of course highlight the apparent paradox in that more and more money is being invested in physical improvements to make stations step free, yet staffing levels have been progressively been reduced. DOO has historically not needed to consider the needs of disabled travellers because British Rail and indeed Governments spent decades treating the disabled as second class citizens. Today with the Government keen to reduce the need to support disabled people through benefits, it has woken up to the fact that a good transport system is necessary if you want them to be able to go out and work and has invested money in physical things - yet still does not seem to appreciate the need for people, not just physical structures.

 

MPs have belatedly realised this and various House of Commons select committees have been firing warning shots across the bows of the Government for a while now to the effect  that it has to think very carefully before pushing for more DOO without a comprehensive strategy being in place to deal with the disability issues it creates.

 

However before anyone gets too excited, that strategy does not have to guarantee a second person being on board a train at all times - in many cases the need to facilitate disabled access can be met by staffing station platforms instead. Also the law does recognise that the world id not perfect - and as such, providing the parameters are correctly drafted, it allows exceptions to be made in 'exceptional circumstances - so Southerns OBS plan does actually met the necessary requirements under the DDA legislation - unlike say GWR Thames Valley DOO services with whom the Unions are not taking action!

[Zomboid]

However before anyone gets too excited, that strategy does not have to guarantee a second person being on board a train at all times - in many cases the need to facilitate disabled access can be met by staffing station platforms instead. Also the law does recognise that the world id not perfect - and as such, providing the parameters are correctly drafted, it allows exceptions to be made in 'exceptional circumstances - so Southerns OBS plan does actually met the necessary requirements under the DDA legislation - unlike say GWR Thames Valley DOO services with whom the Unions are not taking action!

Heading off topic a bit, will that not be largely addressed when TfL take over the stations from Reading inwards? Since their policy is to staff stations from first train until last.

[The Stationmaster]

Heading off topic a bit, will that not be largely addressed when TfL take over the stations from Reading inwards? Since their policy is to staff stations from first train until last.

 

They won't takeover the staffing of all stations from Reading inwards as I understand it.  Twyford will definitely remain staffed and managed by GWR and the situation at the junctions doesn't seem as yet to be entirely clear (not to me at any rate) as if the staff become TfL employees they will still require to be trained in National Rail Rule Book procedures - presumably details are still under discussion as, so I understand, is the case with fares and Oystercard availability (which TfL wish to extend to Reading).  

 

Where, logically TfL would take full control because only their trains will normally call at a station (e.g Burnham to take the simplest example) there will inevitably have to be an increase in cover, and therefore staff, as the full train service hours are not necessarily covered at present.  it will be interesting too to see what they do in respect of currently manned booking offices (even if only part time) because removing them might mean loss of the current range of booking facilities - for example Slough currently offers train reservation facilities during part of the day, will that remain if TfL take control of the booking etc office?

 

Our local commuter group has a public meeting later this week and Mark Hopwood will be speaking (and no doubt being 'questioned') so it will be interesting to hear the latest developments.

[SouthernMafia]

Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, and the 3 branch lines remain GWR. Effectively east of Slough goes Crossrail/MTR.

[phil-b259]

Southern Rail: Aslef members reject latest proposed deal

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39483106

 

And once again it was a tight vote 51.8% against versus 48.2% in favour.

Does this not suggest that Southern drivers are fundamentally split on this issue - I would suggest the the bulk of the 48.2% are metro drivers who have been undertaking DOO for years and want the dispute settled, while the bulk of the 51.8% are drivers on outer routes which have always had guards until very recently.

This might also explain the language used by the head of ASLEF who has over recent moths which has been conciliatory in tone and contrasts with the strident Ian Paisley style "NEVER" pronouncements from the RMT

['CHARD]

This might also explain the language used by the head of ASLEF ... over recent moths 

 

Give those pesky flutterers a dose of balls.... 

[lmsforever]

Back to the drawing board and DAFT must be involved directly as surely this dispute cannot go on much longer ,passengers cannot be inconvenienced any longer.Just think if it was BR again we would have this every month somewhere but then we would not have any trains only roads.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

In fairness, there must be some will on the part of the ASLEF leadership to see this dispute end, as there has been no strike action by the Union since the members rejected the deal a month or so ago. Presumably negotiations continue...

[The Stationmaster]

Southern Rail: Aslef members reject latest proposed deal

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39483106

 

And once again it was a tight vote 51.8% against versus 48.2% in favour.

 

Does this not suggest that Southern drivers are fundamentally split on this issue - I would suggest the the bulk of the 48.2% are metro drivers who have been undertaking DOO for years and want the dispute settled, while the bulk of the 51.8% are drivers on outer routes which have always had guards until very recently.

 

This might also explain the language used by the head of ASLEF who has over recent moths which has been conciliatory in tone and contrasts with the strident Ian Paisley style "NEVER" pronouncements from the RMT

 

According to one BBC bNews bulletin today the result would have been the opposite way round if 14 Drivers (out of those who voted) had voted the other way.  So in reality far tighter than the percentages tend to suggest - and as already noted ASLE&F are carrying on talking.

[unclebobkt]

       I realize that what I am about to write might be considered a rare occurrence, a worst case scenario:  but consider - some d*mn fool at a level-crossing trying to beat the system stalls on the track.  Should there be an rail/road accident then who is likely to be injured, maybe fatally? There's a good chance, isn't there, that it will be the train's driver?

  With single-manning & DOO. then who is going to take the necessary and reporting action to the Emgy. Svces.,  to the signalman etc. etc.?   Plus, of course, ghouls getting in the way, causing obstructions as they're determined to obtain 'Selfies.'. to shew that they were there. 

  Do level-crossings still have keepers?

  Do level-crossings have adjacent telephones to the nearest signal box and/or Emgy. Svces.?

 

  Then,of course, there are those, too,  who delight in throwing paving stones, or similar over bridges' parapets to try and hit the driver's cab or to cause disruption on the tracks below.

 

  Or am I being alarmist about some situations that might occur once every blue moon?

 

       

Edited April 4, 2017 by unclebobkt

[Fenman]

...

  Or am I being alarmist about some situations that might occur once every blue moon?

...

 

I guess there are any number of hypotheticals that can "prove" the necessity of two-person operation.

 

Perhaps you should look at the actual experience on lines where DOO has been in operation for decades. Surely the real-life experience on those lines will tell you more about what the likelihood is of any particular incident and, thus, the best solution in terms of cost/benefit?

 

Paul

[Zomboid]

You could ask the same question of a train with a guard - if the guard is a casualty in a train crash, what then? (Eg Cowden, when both the driver and guard were in the cab and were both killed - not sure if either of the crew on the other train survived, suspect the driver wouldn't, but maybe the guard did).

Anyway, there are now decades worth of data to show what the risks are, and what they aren't.

[Guest]

You could ask the same question of a train with a guard - if the guard is a casualty in a train crash, what then? (Eg Cowden, when both the driver and guard were in the cab and were both killed - not sure if either of the crew on the other train survived, suspect the driver wouldn't, but maybe the guard did).

Anyway, there are now decades worth of data to show what the risks are, and what they aren't.

 

The driver on the southbound DEMU was killed instantly but the guard on that train (who was where he was supposed to be) survived unhurt and was able to carry out his duties. I knew all four of the crew and to say it was a sad day is something of an understatement.

[Mike Storey]

If the crossing is an AHB, or one of several other types of unmonitored crossing, then emergency phones are always available close to hand for a member of the public or emergency services to use, but that is primarily for recovery and treatment of the injured. The key risk in any such situation is from collision by an opposing train or train in rear. All such crossings AFAIK are track circuited, so that the risk of collision is not affected by the presence of a guard. That was only the case for those trains running on non-track circuited track, usually absolute block but also single line operations where a second or more train could be allowed into the same section, prior to arrival of the first train at the next section control point - very, very rare, and always freight only, such as the Hoo-Grain route.

 

Having a "guard" did not stop Heck (not involving a crossing I know), the most recent train on train collision. There was simply no time.

 

The safety issues surrounding the operations insurance of having a second person on the train during an "incident" have long been overtaken, mainly by technology. The issues over passenger boarding safety regarding train despatch have not statistically materialised, but logical concerns remain at key locations and key times. That leaves the issues of customer service and train performance - does the imposition of DDA conformity next year (?) plus the performance regime penalties make a difference? Other than on CoastWay, someone/group in GTR has decided that the penalties in Schedule 8 from the odd station dwell time delay are little compared to the absence of a guard at times of disruption or sudden illness/crap rostering causes of delay penalties. Hard to argue.

 

The customer service and disabled arguments are the only ones left on the table (plus the odd perceived high risk locations/times). It could therefore be argued that job protection is the real focus here, tied to an antagonistic government and unfortunately, supposed neutral civil service which has openly declared war on the rail unions. In view of the latter, amicable resolution is unlikely (perhaps ASLEF by the third time of compromise). No resolution based on evidence based logic is possible when both sides are irredeemably locked in a battle of ideology. You then have to choose which side's ideology is the most appealing, or, as in the case of commuters, which side's ideology is most tested by the threat of losing employment due to the actions of the other. I would guess this is what the hawks at DafT are hoping for, so that RMT must up their game to stay in the running. The evidence so far is that they do not know how.

[royaloak]

Interesting article in Railnews 242 (April 2017) from former BR Safety Manager Peter Rayner who was involved in the original DOO schemes who admits that they were looking at it from a purely operational point of view and not from a passenger point of view, he is now firmly of the opinion that they got it wrong and he stated so in his book 'On and Off the Rails which was published in the late 90s!

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting article in Railnews 242 (April 2017) from former BR Safety Manager Peter Rayner who was involved in the original DOO schemes who admits that they were looking at it from a purely operational point of view and not from a passenger point of view, he is now firmly of the opinion that they got it wrong and he stated so in his book 'On and Off the Rails which was published in the late 90s!

 

All depends on one's opinion of said gentleman and what he says (and the time of day at which he says it), and which ever wind he happens to be blowing at a particular in the hope of someone listening to him.  

 

But yes, correct in one respect - DOO was very carefully considered, and always has been, from the railway's primary responsibility - that of safe operation and in that respect it has a 100% record of never causing or exacerbating an operational safety incident.