Great Western Coffee Shop

GWR can be pretty awful at times (yes, I know sometimes it's down to Network Rail!), but I don't ever recall it getting this bad...................

http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/11/commuters-start-punching-each-other-as-southern-rail-continues-to-implode-6186206/

I guess sometimes you have to count your blessings!

Dunno, that picture of a crowded platform at East Croydon reminds me of Reading back in my commuting days, often you wouldn't be able to get on the first HST, and have to wait for the next one, or even a third. Never saw a punch thrown though, I guess Berkshire commuters are more genteel. For all that the refurbed HST's got panned for their interiors, they did fit a lot more people in.

Over-running works in the Balcombe Tunnel - failure of a NR machine late on.....plus RMT strike day 1.

I am so glad that I moved from London and am therefore no longer reliant on southern and their friends at thameslink.

Some of the southern problems look to me like simple incompetence by southern management. 4 car trains in the rush hour for example. With so many services cancelled due to the strike, they can hardly plead shortage of rolling stock.

I can understand the anger of regular victims. Some of the more moderate victims are calling for all season ticket renewals to be free until next April as compensation for the problems.
Other less reasoned voices are calling for a mass non payment of fares, resisting fare collection by violence if need be.

It's not a situation which is without precedent on the railways - idiotic trade unions and incompetent management, a perfect storm......some sort of hefty compensation is appropriate although 6 months seems a little optimistic. There is never a justification for violence so I hope common sense and decency prevails on that one.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37650531):

combined with the DfT who are pulling the strings of all of this.  A private company is being used, I suspect reluctantly, as a weapon to break the union under direction of the government who justifies privatisation on the basis that it frees the railway from government interference. 

The optimum outcome for passengers would be to let the drivers control the doors but have a second safety competent person guaranteed on every train.  Given that they would not be controlling the doors they could be usefully employed doing something that could both enhance the passenger experience (for example deal with yobbos, pick up litter, be a visible friendly face) and/or generate revenue (for example work on revenue protection or sell refreshments).   

Perfectly analogous to what safety critical cabin crew do on a flight.  They need to be there by law to deal with an emergency, but they are not locked away in a special compartment to be called on if needed, but are up and about, working hard and earning their keep.   Ultimately that is the only way that Guards will be retained, if they are safeguarding revenue or generating their own revenue stream. 

I heard something on the radio yesterday that the guards have to learn the route.  Whilst I can understand this in the days when they had to apply the brake at key locations, I cannot see why that might be necessary today.  Can anyone enlighten me?

Two principle reasons:

1)  If they are dealing with train despatch they need to know the location of signals so they don't try and despatch the train against a red signal - the driver would be ultimately responsible for going past a red light, but the risk of doing so increases significantly if they get 'two to go' from the guard and a signal is red.  So, for example, on a train heading down the Cotswold Line they know they don't need to worry about signals at Hanborough, Charlbury and Kingham, but do at Moreton-In-Marsh, Honeybourne, and Evesham.

2)  They still have responsibilities for dealing with emergency situations and need to know about the route characteristics and be able to identify where they are should they be required to undertake emergency protection of the train.

seems perfectly reasonable for guards to have at least some formalised route knowledge.  Not just from a safety point of view either but from a customer service perspective.  If a guard is able to look out of a window and know where they are they are going to be able to give better information to customers, better timed and more informative announcements etc.  Customer service relevant route knowledge would for example include knowing which platforms are short, which stations are difficult for loading bikes, which platforms the train normally calls at so as to be able to direct a nervous passenger to the station taxi rank or be able to reassure the customer laden with bags, kids and a buggy that their next train which is due to depart in just a couple of minutes is likely to be from the same or opposite platform rather than require a mad dash to the overbridge/subway.  It is only with route familiarity that you get announcements like "please retain your tickets for the barriers which are normally in operation at this station" or [on a Cross Country Voyager pulling into Temple Meads]  "sorry all our toilets are all out of use, if you need to use the loo, we will be in Bristol for 6 minutes and they are in the subway"

Not sure they should have to have the same route knowledge as a driver, but I'd much prefer a second professional on board who has good familiarly with the route, the rolling stock and the network as a whole than someone from an agency who has no idea about the route they are on or other routes. 

Yes, I agree.  There's no need for anything other than a basic knowledge of speeds, signal locations, the controlling signal box, station locations (together with details of layout and facilities), and significant railway infrastructure such as viaducts and tunnels.

some of that comes from formal training and some of that comes from long experience in the industry and some of that comes from things like privilege travel which means that staff have experience of being passengers.  Casualization of on board staff undermines all of those things and I think that the RMT is right to resist it, although I have to say it sometimes I feel that guards are their own worse enemy when they sit in their compartment out of sight of the passenger and of course should the TOC decide to give the minority of lazy guard a kick up the proverbial, the RMT will be the first to leap to their defence (to I would say the detriment of their other members) 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38275995

What a great idea (and very British!) - good luck to them!  :)

Unfortunately the headline gives the result away - it failed, with suspicions that union pressure was behind the failure.

True, at short notice. Will be interesting to see what can be achieved for January's strikes with a bit more notice and preparation - anything that assists in breaking this ridiculous strike can only be a good thing.

It will be a challenge.  There must be very few drivers with route knowledge who do not work for Southern. 

There was also the suggestion that Southern 'owned' the train path, so DfT could not allocate it on the basis that Southern wouldn't be using it that day.

On a different note, I've often wondered whether there was room in the market for 'club' trains like used to run on the LMS - effectively gentleman's clubs on wheels run by committees of commuters.

Would not think any route knowledge driver from another area would cross a picket line anyway.  Could only be managers, etc, who would cross a dispute line.

Not really an issue for the Union though is it? Their action/protest is directed against the TOC, not a group of individuals who have chartered a train that has nothing to do with them.

It would be different if Southern were trying to charter trains to break the strike, but this has nothing to do with them surely?

I agree.  Plus this train will not carry many passengers in the big scheme of things but will get the headlines and increase pressure on the Government to sort out the mess at Southern. 

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling writes to MPs and passengers on the Southern route ahead of planned strike action this week.

Dear Southern rail user,

Many of you have written to me in the past few days to ask what the government is doing to try to bring to an end the planned strike action on the network, and the ongoing work to rule that is disrupting services so much.

The first thing to explain is why this dispute is happening. The combined franchise, which includes Southern and Thameslink is currently going through a major programme of change that is designed to significantly increase capacity by the end of this decade. This has included the work at London Bridge and to expand capacity on the Thameslink route through London to a record level of 24 trains per hour. To do this requires significant use of new technology and new trains.

As a result, older trains are being phased out and replaced with a newer fleet which will include some of Britain’s most state of the art, automated trains. For a long time the majority of the trains on this network have been operated by the driver from the cab, normally without a guard on board. This hasn’t led to big drops in staff numbers – on the busier stations it has meant more staff on the platforms instead to help dispatch trains quicker. This is essential to trying to get a congested railway to run on time.

As the new trains are introduced, so more of the older trains that depend on a guard are removed. Rather than simply getting rid of the guard, though, the plan has been to create a new on-board supervisor role to provide better support for passengers. It is this change that the RMT, which represents the guards, has been fighting against – even though none of their members are losing their jobs or any money. In fact, there will be more on-board supervisors available on more trains than today.

This week’s strikes, though, are by the drivers’ union ASLEF, and are entirely politically motivated. ASLEF members will continue this week to drive Thameslink trains, which are driver only operated, on the same routes that their Southern members are boycotting. The independent rail safety inspector has said that these trains and the Southern approach, which mirrors what has happened on our railways for 30 years, is perfectly safe.

What has been most frustrating to everyone is that you are also experiencing routine problems on non-strike days too. The biggest factor behind this has been an ongoing and unofficial work to rule, with high levels of sickness, and a doubling of “broken down” trains whose faults cannot be replicated in the depot. However, there have also been too many failures of the Network Rail infrastructure, like signalling, and also very poor communication by the train company. These are things that also need to be sorted out. We have made a start on the infrastructure, but there is a long way to go. Passengers’ interests must come first and to resolve these issues we need all staff to come back to work.

In essence this is a battle between the unions and the management over whether they will allow new technologies and new ways of working on the railway. It is deeply deeply unfair on the passengers who are left in the middle of this dispute.

My ministerial and official team and I have been working hard since we took over our jobs just under 5 months ago to try to find a way through this. But the unions appear to have little interest in resolving the dispute unless the management cave in totally to their demands. These are not just to stop the current modernisation process, but to start reversing 30 years of working practice changes right across the country.

When I met the General Secretary of ASLEF soon after my appointment, with virtually his first breath he promised me “10 years of industrial action.” I have therefore believed it better to avoid direct ministerial involvement in negotiations during the autumn, as my involvement would make the issue even more political than it is.

Following their appearance on the Today programme a week ago, I wrote to the unions offering to become involved and meet them for talks if they called off their planned strikes. They have not yet replied to the letters.

Yesterday, Southern offered further talks at ACAS, the conciliation service, to try to find a resolution. ASLEF didn’t turn up. Last night Southern suggested another round of talks without preconditions today. The union refused. ASLEF demanded that Southern stopped taking legal action over the strike, but refused to suspend strike action in return. It’s very frustrating and not the actions of a union that wants to act to get services back to normal.

There has been some suggestion that the solution is to hand over Southern to the Mayor of London. Southern is part of a franchise that stretches from Cambridge to Southampton, via Brighton – way beyond the political remit of the Mayor. Transport for London has no experience of running a complicated main line railway like this. Indeed it does not even run railways itself. The Overground is run by Arriva and it performs well as a simple network which is mainly self-contained and therefore there is less need to co-ordinate with other operators and services. When things go wrong it is much easier to recover quickly on the Overground, with less impact on passengers.

I am very committed to trying to solve this problem for you. I wish we were dealing with reasonable people on the union side. For all the shortcomings of the train operator – and there have been many – and the failures of the infrastructure – also many – it is difficult to resolve any of the other problems on this network while the union leadership seem hell bent on fomenting this dispute.

We will continue to do everything we can to resolve things, and are looking carefully at all options to do so. In the meantime I am really really sorry that you are caught up in this with so much disruption to your lives.

If true, what was said by ASLEF general secretary, promising "10 years of industrial action", then that's a big mistake. Unions taking on the Conservative Party is a fight the unions will lose.

Those that do not learn history are damned to repeat it.

The rail unions are the last dinosaurs to have survived with a 1970s mentality, their power is derived mainly from their ability to cause massive inconvenience to London and the South East, this action and posturing will only hasten their extinction.

They will only be extinct if they lose the confidence of their members.  I do not see any sign of that.

There was a time when they said that about the NUM.

The Reagan administration had the right idea in the PATCO dispute.

But we managed to keep the light on without burning British coal. 

I think much of it was. There was a years stockpile built up at the power stations as an insurance. But I get the point. You can't do that with train services.

I think the unions have walked into a trap as Grayling is an ideologue, you only have to have seen his letter to Boris Johnson about tfl and the London suburban services to see that and the Govt will either make it difficult to call strikes in the transport sector or just ban them all together.

Classic politician's letter.  Shifting the blame to the Unions because they are stuck in the 1970s rather than focussing on the details of the Southern problem directly in front of him.

The only sensible solution as I see it would be for Southern to retain a second safety critical person on every train and for the Union to allow the drivers to open and close the doors and for the second person to therefore spend more time selling and checking tickets.  All the jobs are retained, the safety advantages of having a second person on board to secure the train and help with evacuations are retained, and the Guard sells a few more tickets and therefore contributes a bit more to his/her upkeep.  The only looser here is the fare dodger.  

I don't see the Unions refusing a compromise of this nature because they agreed to it in Scotland.
I don't see Southern refusing it either as it ends the dispute and has the potential to increase fare revenue.
The only party against this is the Government who has decided that it wants a fight with a Union so that it can bask in the glory of a Thatcher-style union busting success because that is the kind of thing the Tory grass roots love.  

The Rail industry needs to look at how the airlines deal with Safety critical roles.  The cabin crew are highly trained and the plane will not be allowed out full of passengers without them.  But the airlines have decided to view these essential staff as an opportunity and use them to either provide high quality customer service in order to win customers (in First class on a full service airline) or to use them to generate ancillary revenue (selling cups of tea on a low cost carrier).  None of those activities undermine their safety critical role.  

you may very well be right.  I suspect that Grayling's role will be to wear the Unions down.  He will then step down and his successor will agree a compromise, but one that weakens the Unions power. 

I am no apologist for the unions, but I have some sympathy with them in all this.  The fact is that, over the years, railway management and the unions have willingly negotiated many agreements relating to how the railway is operated.  Many of these agreements are old, but they are still there.  It seems reasonable that neither side can unilaterally withdraw from them.  If one side doesn’t like a particular agreement then it needs to be changed or withdrawn through negotiation, not by one side deciding to ignore it.

Yet on Southern, and I understand on GWR, management are saying things like they don’t regard some of these agreements as important, or they can be ignored, or they are irrelevant.  What is also clear is that many of to-day’s railway managers have no idea what some of these agreements are, and that it is not uncommon at meetings for the union side to have to explain them to the management side.

Worth adding that I am aware that, because of management ignorance of some old agreements, productivity opportunities are being missed.

None of the parties involved - DfT, Southern management or the unions -  come out of this dispute well.  But the fact is that its management’s job to manage: in a service industry like the railways you have to take your staff with you, and in this they have completely failed.

Time to make this a general 'Southern woes' thread?

What's going on in the south is likely to rumble on for some time.

Is this the first time an entire franchise (I appreciate Southern is now a brand in a super-franchise) has shut down due to industrial action?

agree with much of that.  I'd also add that this should all be seen against the backdrop of a growing successful industry with customers and income rising year on year.  One would have thought that negotiations and opportunities for increased productivity would be much easier with that backdrop than they would be if we were talking about a declining industry.    Contrast with the passenger railway with the freight industry where productivity has rocketed due to investment in new technology and accompanying changes in working practices by members of the exact same unions who Chris
Grayling is portraying as outdated dinosaurs. 

I think you need to be careful how you define "success" - in the relevant context of the South East/London yes there is more income and customers but that has everything to do with demographics, employment patterns and monopoly suppliers and pretty much nothing to do with a high quality offering - it's rather like saying a hospital is more "successful" because more patients are turning up for treatment - it's all there is, and hence they don't have much choice.

If what was on offer was a good customer experience, competitively priced and reliable with a high level of customer service then you may find the public more sympathetic, however it patently isn't and this is one of the reasons the public get so annoyed.

The rail unions are in the fortunate position of being able to hold the public to ransom - there used to be a lot of Unions in this position but now they are one of very few, and boy do they milk it for all its worth.

One recalls the annual threats of strikes on the Underground for almost every spurious reason imaginable (especially around Christmas) and the fact that even in Olympic year a "bribe" had to be paid to ensure the service kept running.

Some may say that was down to the canniness of Bob Crow (RIP) and his heirs and successors, others may see it as a cynical ploy to fleece the employers and public.

Against this backdrop, don't expect huge amounts of public sympathy for a dispute nominally about safety (where the regulator has said that there isn't an issue and the system is running on other lines perfectly well) and job losses (where no jobs/compulsory redundancies are on the agenda).

How about "Southern Wails"?

OTC

If I was a Southern commuter I would bribe a doorman at ACAS to lock all doors and windows where they are meeting. Then refuse all requests for food water and comfort breaks until both sides have signed a binding agreement....that should concentrate their minds wonderfully and give them a taste of the misery they have been inflicting on others....

What do you mean exactly by 'safety critical' in a railway context? Flight attendants are there to cope with in-flight emergencies as it's not possible for a plane just to stop. One can't simply, as the song says 'Get out and get under'. The contexts are not strictly comparable.

With my thanks to 'OTC' and 'BNM' here on the Coffee Shop forum for their constructive suggestions, I've now amended the heading of this particular topic to more accurately reflect the nature of this ongoing debate.  ::)

The unions have offered the Scotrail deal I understand, but GTR want to be able to run delayed trains without a second on board but only during disruption in order to be able to pick up the second en-route. So being flexible with guards/OBS staff getting them turning round short to join their next rostered train rather than having to cancel trains simply through lack of the second staff member.

As long as the legal agreement was watertight (restrict to trains running over 20 mins late maybe), frankly I think the unions should give way.

It's unclear from the article if it was solely Mick Cash or the entire contingent from RMT, but he has been barred from entering the most recent round of talks at ACAS - ASLEF represent 1000 employees of Southern, RMT only 12:

Full Article : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38307155 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38307155)

All I mean by safety critical is needing to be there before the service runs.  Flight attendants and Guards are comparable in that sense at least.  Without them the train/aircraft is allowed to move but not with passengers on board.  My point is only that the airline industry has done better than the rail industry in occupying these people with providing customer service (and sometimes even generating income) in the 99.999..% of the journeys where their safety role is not needed.  The Union needs to realise that the key to persuading the ToCs to retain those people is for them to be doing something more useful (to the bottom line) than unlocking doors.

I thought Southern had already guaranteed that all of these people (posts) would be retained and that they would not suffer any loss of income, the only change that I understand is losing the responsibility for train door operation, dispatch & protection to a full time customer facing role.

Perhaps intending passengers who have been subjected to horrors for months feel the same from RMT, ASLEF, Southern Rail and the DfT. 



Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN. 

I thought today's ACAS meeting was only booked to be ASLEF v Southern.

If so then frankly Bob Crow Mk2 can do one.

That's not to say Mick ("10 years of strikes") Whelan of ASLEF is any less of a dinosaur than the RMTs Mick Cash.

I thought the Scotrail deal is really little different to what Southern were already doing on guard operated services, at least on 377s? The driver opens the doors already.   Unless it means SN would also have to put a second member of staff back on trains that have been one man operated for ages.   It's difficult to pin down which geographic areas of current SN operation RMT are actually striking over, let alone ASLEF.

Paul

Both unions would almost certainly argue that their disputes are completely separate and coincidental, so it would be a bit rich to expect a combined meeting, as you say.

Paul

Cannot help thinking that there be room for a rotating vacancy on top of the nearest Christmas tree for a certain C.Grayling and M.Cash to replace A.Doll (the current incumbent) of the Southern Railway Company. To be placed firmly in situ by as many Southern commuters as can get their hands on them.

Correct.

The argument as I've seen it reported is that Southern want simply the flexibility, only at times of disruption, for their trains to start their journeys DOO, and pick up the delayed, safety-trained second member of staff on the journey, presumably arranged by their OPs section to join at a later station.

And the RMT refuse. They'll go no further than the Scotrail offer, which means if that second staff member is delayed on their inward journey, the train departs after their arrival, or is more likely cancelled.

I couldn't disagree with that.  ;)

In the interest of absolute clarity, that quote is from Mick Cash and NOT me!

Accepted, chrisr_75 - so I've edited that original post, but also left this one, simply to give the context.  ;)

The RMT's objection isn't so much over what their members will be doing, but over the ToCs desire to run train without their members.  At the moment they say that this will only apply at time of disruption, but that is probably the thin end of the wedge and I would expect that the definition of "time of disruption" includes an RMT strike, thereby weakening the RMT's power and ensuring that pay and conditions will erode over the coming years. 

Easyto construct a legal agreement to exclude, surely?

No, the unions point blank refuse anything that doesn't give any flexibility & want a second crew on board at *all* times, or train is cancelled

I get the distinct impression that, left to their own devices, Southern and the unions would have cobbled together an agreement to last the remainder of the franchise. It may then become someone else's problem. Instead, both sides are at loggerheads and Southern stands a very real chance of losing the franchises it holds because of its cack-handed management of the situation. It has, let us not forget, been around for a lot less time than the rail unions.

The government is now talking about limiting unions' ability to strike. Good luck with that, given that they ultimately lost the case for excluding unions from GCHQ, and that if they do a Reagan and haul striking drivers off in handcuffs, there still won't be any trains running. That they are thinking of such a thing because of a disagreement between a private sector employer and its employees shows that this is a proxy war between government and unions, with the train operating company and the poor bloody passenger as the collateral victims.

The "Association of British Commuters" - https://abcommuters.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/your-complete-guide-to-thursdays-southernfail-protest-how-you-can-help/ and https://www.facebook.com/groups/1208771822490198/?fref=nf - is planning a march this evening (17:30 from Victoria) to the DfT.    ABC describes itself as "the pressure group soon to undertake a judicial review of the government’s handling of Southern Rail" though with the name the group has chosen, it would appear to have far wider ambitions than just the Southern Franchise area.

You have a number of Goliaths slugging it out, each appearing more principled than pragmatic in looking for solutions, with the passengers for whom a rail service is being provided in the first place being the powerless minnows.  Passenger involvement seems to have fallen by the wayside (if it was ever there) with complaints of MPs not responding, with criticism of the company running Southern dating from before this dispute, and no-to-little from the unions to provide reassurance that they are putting passengers above politics.

The theory is that the passenger's voice is via the DfT because that's directed by the government that we elected, and indeed I wonder whether their arms-length spinoff Transport Focus should be more involved ...

It's true that Southern has been around for a lot less time than the rail Unions, however confusing length of tenure with being right minded is a tenuous link at best - let's focus on consistency instead - in 2011 Mick Whelan agreed to his members operating 12 car DOO trains for First Capital Connect in return for a pay rise for drivers - rather blows away his high minded commitment to Health and Safety doesn't it?

He has latterly claimed that this has led to an increase in incidents however this is flatly refuted by the Rail Safety and Standards Board.

So I think it's fair to say that agreeing to a position he alleges is dangerous in return for a pay rise, and now calling his members out on strike on the premise that it's too dangerous, is a somewhat "cack handed" negotiating position wouldn't you say?

If anyone's declaring war, it's the Unions. This is becoming a political strike, stoking the egos of the Union Barons, and let's remember the record/longevity of Trade Unions taking on Conservative Governments over issues which they have little credibility or public sympathy is not a good one.

I think you're very wrong there - Transport Focus is no spin-off from a small group of unhappy commuters - previously called Passenger Focus, it's the independent passenger body for Rail (and Road). Nothing to do whatsoever with ABC

I think I've been very wrongly understood - Transport Focus is a governmental quango / spinoff.  Indeed nothing to to with ABC - shouldn't have read like that!

yes, sorry - you majored on ABC & then mentioned the DfT in the same sentence, so you were inded referring to the DfT rather than ABC.

TF however, won't get involved in union disruption, especially when the DfT is involved!

We all know this is politically motivated, when Labour was in before 2010, the unions would have been happy with these plans, the second the Conservatives come into power, there planning strikes!!   I think its about time Theresa May got her act into gear, and went a bit Margret Thatcher style on them, and if that doesn't work, then maybe strikes on any form of public transport should be considered!

Flight Attendants are allowed to work with passengers on-board, the legal rule is that 1 flight attendant must be available for a maximum of 49 passengers, so in this regard they are completely different to a guard/train manager.

Absolutely correct in respect of ASLEF (the drivers union) unless there are specific technical concerns about the DOO equipment then this is absolutely not a safety issue for ASLEF.  It isn't even a standing up for your members issue.  It is simply the Union flexing its muscle (perhaps it wants to be seen to be as tough as the RMT?)

In respect of the RMT, I do think there is a safety issue about removing a second safety critical staff member - although it is not connected with the doors.  There is also the spectre of the Guards role being downgraded and that resulting in pay and conditions being eroded in the future.  You may think that the Guard role should be downgraded, but the RMT are sticking up for their members which is what they are there for.  

Guards are allowed to work with passengers on-board too.  They are allowed to sell tickets, deter ticketless travel and anti-social behaviour, provide information and reassurance to passengers.  My original point is that Guards did more of this then perhaps they would be looked at as more of an asset than a cost by the ToCs.  For Guards to become more useful they need to be freed of door duties and (some of them) need to change their attitude and become more visible to passengers.  There is a potential win-win outcome to this dispute resulting in the retention of guards but reassigning their duties and management so that they are able to "earn their keep" better. 

"oooh, not my job, Guv"

The hard man in the camp! It is true he's had foot in all camps...having been involved with BR, then in setting up the Shropshire and Wrexham and now DfT

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/14/peter-wilkinson-the-man-the-unions-say-is-driving-the-southern-rail-strike

Blimey, he does look a bit like Lord Voldemort in that photo, doesn't he?

The talks between GTR & ASLEF have broken down at ACAS.

precisely.  And that is where my sympathy with the Union mentality ends. 

I went to that Woldemar talk yesterday evening. His take on this is that Southern are pawns in a long-term government strategy which is more to do with labour relations than transport, ie removing unions. Unlike other TOCs, Southern is not a franchise but a management contract; this means they don't lose money (or not so much) when trains don't run. That's why the government can use them to remove the unions' ability to stop trains running, by the introduction of DOO. It's not that Southern particularly wants DOO or intends to use it, or that it will even become the norm; just that enabling it means a guards' strike cannot stop the railways. Bear in mind that Wolmar of course has his own political slant.

I wouldn't disagree at all. The most cack-handed negotiating position, however, must be held by DafT supremo Peter Wilkinson, who poured oil on troubled flames when he made his view on the dispute between a private company and its employees crystal clear last February:


Sorry, whose industry? As a retired civil servant, I doubt I would have dreamed of saying such a thing, even when drunk.

It remains my opinion, though, that without government interference on a large scale, Southern and the unions would have reached a compromise that didn't cost much, gave both sides a victory and a loss, and kicked the issue into the long grass until the next franchise. However it may appear in certain newspapers, rail staff do not like losing pay and would rather be working. TOCs, like any othe business, certainly don't like losing revenue and, possibility more importantly, credibility with the government and passengers.

I think the safety issue re DOO could have been better argued by ASLEF – their PR is truly awful, and does their members a great injustice.  In particular, the Hayes & Harlington incident changed things.  Until then I think there was an assumption that if the Driver got the door interlocks it was OK to go.  After Hayes the Driver was criticised for not looking back down the train to ensure every door was clear, as RAIB seemed to be saying the door interlocks could not be relied upon.

Now this may be OK for a 3 car Turbo, but is this duty not unduly onerous for a 12 coach train on the crowded Southern network?  Even with CCTV, the Driver will have 24 images to look at – I don’t know what size they are, but on a crowded platform how can the Driver be sure that no-one standing close to a door has not, for example got their raincoat trapped?

If I was ASLEF I would say fine, we’ll do DOO with 12 coaches, but on condition that no Driver will be disciplined for a trap incident so long as they had the door interlocks OK.

BTW, I agree that Peter Wilkinson's involvement has been unhelpful.  Grayling could do the industry and Southern commuters a great service by sacking him.

edited following moderator's reminder on Forum rules

But he is a tough man, and the government needs a tough man at the helm, which is why he is paid a lot more than the Prime Minister. Even if this dispute is nothing to do with them. (Ahem).

I'm thinking more like the controller in "The Village" ...number 6

Please do remember that "Personal attacks on people / individuals are unacceptable ...." from our forum guidelines - http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1761.0 .  Many of the opinions we form are moulded by the people, the organisations and media who provide the data feeds we read ... and especially in a fraught engagement between the goliaths involved in the Southern dispute may not impartially reflect the person.

In this dispute though, Southern (or rather parent, GTR) aren't losing revenue. The revenue from GTR goes directly to HMG. GTR are paid a management fee.

It's almost as if someone at the DfT or Treasury knew what would happen when they specified the extension of DOO and changes of guards roles for GTR Southern. Deciding the only way they could tempt bidders was to go for a management contract rather than a 'classic' franchise.

I've no idea if GTR are on any sort of performance targets tied to the management fee. If they are then they've been used as a pawn, and stitched up by HMGs desire to hamstring the rail unions.

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that the only winner in this will be Tory ideology. DOO extension will happen, OBS will happen, working practice modernisation will happen, rail union power will be severely tempered, GTR will probably be pulled from or quit the contract.

The unions have walked into the mire, dragging their members in with them.

I think that sums it up very succinctly.

I agree.  Though did the union have any realistic choice?

Would it be better to have this thread moved to 'The Wider Picture'?  I say that with slight reservation though as it might well impact on GWR shortly given they are still in dispute with the RMT over operation of the new IET units!

And now Merseyrail have stepped in, stating that not only will their new stock be DOO, but not all guards will retain their jobs, and many services will indeed run with only the driver on board.

It will be interesting to see how that pans out.  One of ASLEF's main complaints is the problem trying to monitor 12 coach trains.  That clearly won't be an issue on Merseyrail. 

I have to ask again, if DOO is such a worry on safety grounds, why did Mick Whelan agree to his members operating 12 car DOO trains for First Capital Connect in return for a pay rise for drivers in 2011?

Or even "What has changed since 2011 to make you change your mind re DOO?"

I think one thing that has changed is passenger expectations, reflecting wider social changes.  Everyone seems less willing to take responsibility for themselves, and instead expect others to “look after” them.  20 years ago if you put your hand in a Tube door the Driver would probably not release it but instead wait until you pulled it out – if you got dragged along that was your fault.

I mentioned the Hayes incident before.  Here was a passenger running down the ramp towards a train that was preparing to depart and deliberately putting their hand in a closing door hoping to get it opened.  Because of the small gap the Driver gets the door interlocks OK and is able to take power and drive off.  Who got blamed? The Driver.  Who would have got blamed 20 years ago? The passenger.

DOO on 12 car trains is fine if the passengers behave sensibly and keep clear of closing doors, and don’t try and blame Southern, the Driver etc if they do something silly and get hurt.  But that is not how to-days consumers behave, they’ll always want to blame someone else for their own wrong actions etc.

So the thing that has changed since 2011 is consumer behaviour.  I realise I’m in a minority of about 1 on this ….

Not quite....

There's a lot of truth in what you write. It's part of the compensation culture that's grown up where the person never does wrong & if wronged (including bringing it on oneself), they try & claim from the oppo.

Given that railway byelaws specifically prohibit the action taken by the person at Hayes, I wonder how successful such a claim would be? 

No person shall move, operate, obstruct, stop or in any other way interfere with any automatic closing door, train, or any other equipment on the railway...:

Maybe the railway should be more open as to what these bylaws are.  Putting a summary of that wording on every door window might make a few people think twice, and at least it would be clear where the fault lay in the event of any incident. 

It certainly wouldn't stop it happening though. The acceleration of modern trains makes an accident likey to be worse if someone gets a hand stuck. Not that they should, of course, but someone will.

Agreed: now done.  ;)

The RMT Leadership have clarified the issue............not that it's a political strike of course, God forbid!  ;)

(in most of the newspapers, not just the Express)

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/744753/Southern-strikes-RMT-union-boss-bring-down-Tory-government-action

Assuming the reporting is accurate (dangerous assumption perhaps?!), then there are certainly some echoes of a certain A.Scargill - I would hope the government would ruthlessly deal with any suggestion of interference with the democratic process. RMT and/or that National Shop Stewards Network perhaps need to examine the story of the miners strike of 1984 before making grand plans about bringing down governments...

In The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rail-union-boss-vows-to-topple-tories-c0hm3r3sh):


Whilst I would give scant regard to what an individual member said, a statement by a union's president (if confirmed) bears somewhat more weight.

Has the Shadow Transport Minister (Andy McDonald) had anything to say on the dispute?

Totally silent!

But the Mayor, and hence TfL, are Labour controlled, and they support DOO on Crossrail/TFL Rail & London Overground!

I am reminded of a previous post in this thread


It appears this industrial action has become politicised, though I am not sure whether it by the government or the unions or both. This has had the effect of concealing a legitimate concern.

Companies that have harmonious relations are ones where such matters are resolved by discussion in a spirit of cooperation in which both sides listen.

Where companies assert a managers right to manage - usually a code for managers not listening - or unions resort to industrial action overly quickly, then cooperation goes out of the window. Once gone it is very difficult to restore as one side feeds off the other.

If you get external influences (e.g. governments) involved who are not party to the negotiations who therefore are by definition not listening then it makes it worse.

It doesn't matter whether it has been accepted before if circumstances change and there are concerns they must be addressed.

Didn't someone important talk about starting to listen to people who think they no longer have control over their lives. 

The President of the RMT (not some random shop steward) comes out with the statement "if we all spit together we can drown the bastards" referring to the (democratically elected) Government............stop to imagine for a moment what the reaction would be if a Government minister described Trade unionists in the same way?

It's just old fashioned left wing bigotry/rabble rousing, I bet old Bob Crow is looking down (or perhaps up) rubbing his hands together and nodding approvingly.

This is a bit more colourful language, but not a lot different to right wing politicians talk of breaking the unions, who also have democratically elected leaders.   

This sort language from whatever side is not helpful

Slight difference in that the whole Government is democratically elected though

According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38357582), it's the General Secretary rather than the President who speaks for the RMT.

Perhaps Mr Hoyle will now get his fraternal colleagues in the CWU to black Mr Cash's Christmas Card delivery to him?

Paul

That would open a whole new debate on our electoral process if we were not keeping discussion to railways.

Democrates must be turning in his grave!

Except Baroness Evans of course, who sits in cabinet.

And what defines 'Government'? All those civil servants that keep the wheels of government in motion aren't democratically elected.

As for the legislature, we have a whole branch that is unelected.

The point I was trying to make is that tory politicians and left wing rabble rousers alike are equally unhelpful if they start to meddle in employment issues that they are not directly involved with.  They get in the way of sorting out and resolving the legitimate concerns of employers and their employees. 

The Government is the party in power and those making the laws are all elected - those in Government in the Upper House being subservient to those in the elected lower house.

Labour's Winter of Discontent, anyone? Both sides equally meddle

I agree

Happy to agree to if you can quote or directly cite an example of "right wing" politicians (a subjective term in itself) suggesting that Trade Unionists should be drowned or otherwise done away with.

I know that the Left have a problem condemning the advocation of violence without equivocation or whataboutery (they've struggled from Stalin through Kim Il sung to Pol Pot and most recently Castro), but hey, "colourful", "drown the bastards" why not?  ::)

Not a politician, but Peter Wilkinson, the DfT's Passenger Services Director, has said some pretty inflammatory things about rail staff. As a senior civil servant his utterances are at just one remove from his political paymasters. Polar opposite in viewpoint but not too different in sentiment to that of the RMT President.

Said to residents of Croydon at a meeting:
"Over the next three years we're going to be having punch ups and we will see industrial action and I want your support."

On train drivers threats to strike: "I'm furious about it and it has got to change - we have got to break them. They have all borrowed money to buy cars and got credit cards. They can't afford to spend too long on strike and I will push them into that place. They will have to decide if they want to give a good service or get the hell out of my industry."

One side wants to spit on the other. The other side wants a punch up.

There really is no need to bring the likes if Stalin, Pol Pot or Castro into this thread. Otherwise, for a balancing far right viewpoint, there's a danger that Godwin's Law will be invoked.  :P

Too late for that. I'm off to Sports Direct to get a Discount Tent, just in case. I'll keep that by the door with my passport, and enough petrol in the British car to get to Devon. I should be safe there - normal rules don't apply. The nearest station to my drum is at Kings Nympton, about 11 miles away.


Now, come on BNM! As a civil servant, I worked for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for more years than I care to count, no-one else. I was democratically appointed to my first post by a board of three middle-class white males under a system doubtless approved by parliament once. I signed the Official Secrets Act, as I also did when I signed up for the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, and I haven't broken it yet.

Whilst me and the Queen were running the country (she still is), Prime Ministers have come and gone - Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron. I technically worked under Theresa May's administration, as she was appointed Prime Minister on 11 July this year, by co-incidence my last day of service. In practice, I didn't do anything for her as I was using up annual leave before I retired.

The Civil Service is not political. Ideally, it would be incorruptible, and almost is, although a few cases always emerge to show otherwise. Without political view or favour, it carries out the policies of the elected government, without comment, in much the same way as the army goes and shoots whoever the government says it should shoot. Some may argue that DafT has fallen under the party political sphere of influence in a way not seen before - I could comment, being retired, but won't.

Interestingly in missing/misunderstanding my point in your final paragraph, you've actually helped to demonstrate it.

The Left (not exclusively but mostly) find it really difficult to be unequivocal in condemning their icons  - there is always a "Yeah but" or a "whatabout?" - therefore we have Castro- a brutal dictator who murdered thousands of his own citizens - "Yeah but he built lots of hospitals and schools" - Mao - murdered tens of millions - "Yeah but he industrialised China" - Stalin - murdered tens of millions - "Yeah but what about Hitler?".......................there is a time when you have to condemn wickedness unequivocally without "Balance" or relativism because otherwise it devalues what has gone on......or you end up with a "Top Trumps" style debate - most dictators will have done something positive for the people who support them and/or someone worse can be identified, that doesn't mitigate the rest.


The issue/context here is that the President of a Trade union, has made the suggestion regarding the democratically elected Government, that ""if we all spit together we can drown the bastards"  - my point is, there is no room for nit picking equivocation over a statement like this - it is disgraceful and should be roundly and unequivocally condemned, it would be refreshing if the leadership of the many millions of decent Trade Unionists who respect the democratic system could join in this condemnation......we shall see, and many will measure them accordingly.

(I am not suggesting that the good people on this Forum awake every morning to the sound of the Internationale by the way!!!)

Won't happen...their use if the word 'Brother'....one never criticises another, at least publicly, regardless of what he's done

Though they will happily resort to fisticuffs...   :D

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jun/16/politics.tradeunions

Can anyone explain to me the technical difference between DOO services on a network such as SE (or any other for that matter) and the tube network? Am I missing something here?

I'm just curious why DOO on the tube is any different.

Or am I being naive...I suspect I may be (I'm also not trying to provoke an argument)

They really are lovely people aren't they? Brothers striking sisters, hardly very comradely?  ::)

Tube trains are fewer carriages that some of the trains currently being discussed, and there are staff at every tube station throughout the time trains operate.   That's for starters ... there are other things I'm not 100% sure of such as the levels and types of CCTV and where it's monitored from, lighting levels, maximum gap between train and platform, type of door sensor.   There is also the difference that the political Lord and masters for the underground are a Labour mayor contract, whereas for Southern it's a Conservative / government controlled contract; whether that latter is a consideration is a subject for fierce speculation.

thank you Graham - I guess I was thinking about it purely from the on-board control but as you say there are other reasons. I had guess there were it was just I wasn't aware of them.

To be fair, that incident was over 12 years ago.  It was when a 'maverick' General Secretary had been elected that none of the rest of the leadership wanted.  I think many of the ASLEF membership rolled their eyes just like in your post, TG!

This link regarding the build up and aftermath makes for sobering reading:  http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0408/aslef21.html

Meanwhile, after examining some fish entrails, reading the tea leaves, and watching the 1 O'Clock News on the BBC, I get the impression that the government is quietly trying to paddle its canoe backwards out of the particular creek in which this argument is to be found, and the other one involving airlines. "Essential service" legislation is said to be too cumbersome a tool, especially as the last lot of anti-strike legislation doesn't even come into effect until the new year. The government doesn't want something as contentious as that cluttering up the programme when it needs all of its time and energy for Brexit.

The next few days may give some indication.

Also AIUI the tube lines under normal operation are under automatic train control.  You could ague (if you ignored the fact that the drivers can and do drive on occasion) that the tube drivers primary role is to open and close the doors rather than to drive the trains

Only some, I think, such as the Victoria (and Northern?)....I think the sub-surface lines are still being driven.

And Jubilee and Central.  So, yes, for the time being, sub-surface lines are all driven by the driver.

Slightly OT, but a few years ago at Birmingham New St a woman lost her toddler into the gap between train and platform as they were getting off a train. I wasn't there so I don't know exactly how it happened, but I do know someone who was there, and he reached down into the gap and hauled the kid out. Someone else, who I think has worked in railway signalling (...software!), said that in such a situation the first thing to do is to jam the door open in order to prevent the train moving. Obviously I'm not suggesting that anyone doing so would be prosecuted under that regulation, more wondering if it would actually work and whether it should work. That is, on the basis that people do daft things and systems should allow for the worst not to happen when they do, perhaps the door interlocks really should detect a hand? After all, is there anything more likely to get stuck in them?

More modern stock has better detections system, but in the case of the Hayes incident a slim female wrist wasn't big enough to trigger the sensors on a turbo.  The danger of making them too sensitive is that they won't give interlock when it's just the end of a coat/scarf or McDonalds bag stuck in them - which is not uncommon and would cause lots more delays whilst the driver went back to remove them!

I think the message coming out of the RAIB report into that incident (https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/passenger-accident-at-hayes-harlington-station) is a little different from that. The point about trapping straps, clothes, or hair is not that it would waste time but it it is as likely to kill someone as trapping a hand. After all, the woman in this case did escape having her hand caught (not her wrist - that was another case a few years ago, and would almost certainly have been very serous). Three months earlier at West Wickham a woman was very badly hurt after a strap on her rucksack - only worn over one shoulder - was trapped and she was dragged off the platform.

Since the doors on these older trains could never detect these thinner objects, the safety mechanism that protects against "trap-and-drag" isn't the interlock, it's the full visual check that no-one is close to the train before starting (applying with DOO or otherwise). That's what failed at Hayes. The fact that most GWR staff didn't understand what the doors could and couldn't do is, however, rather scary in itself.

So what (you may ask) is the interlock for? It tells the driver the doors have all closed, or tried to, so it detects door failure. It is also needed for obstructions on the train, hence not visible when looking along it. The worst case I guess would be someone slumped in the door who subsequently rolled out, or maybe a big object that someone tried to retrieve after the train started but left a gap big enough to fall through. Note that trapped hands or hair of someone otherwise on the train is not a serious operational issue, though it might be uncomfortable - or even worse in someone unsteady who fell while trapped. But that could reasonably be put down as their own responsibility.

I'm not convinced any new "sensitive edge" door systems are going to really alter any of this.

A guard is unlikely to spot any thin item trapped in the doirs either?

Particularly the thin straps on many Christian Diors accessories?  ;D

That's not the point. Rather obviously. That RAIB report quotes this:


The text also refers to other driver instructions and guidance, and seems to assume these clearly say anyone close to the train must be presumed trapped or at least to present a danger that should prevent the train being started. I can't see anything specific quoted to that effect, but there is this later:


Logically, if you must be certain no-one is trapped, you must see that no-one is close enough to be trapped. But I think that has to be spelled out, rather than be left to be deduced by the driver.

I am also reminded of the very sad case in Liverpool, 22 October 2011, discussed here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9790.msg121102#msg121102) on the Coffee Shop forum.

Sorry, the point I was making was around guards being necessary on trains per the RMT, and the likelihood of them spotting these straps better than the driver....

I stand corrected.  I think on all lines the drives do do some driving to keep their practice up for when they need to in case of Automatic Train Control failure.  Typically this is done off peak as drivers can't keep to the density of services that ATC allows.

The points you make are all very true.  Certainly as a result of the Hayes incident, a lot of GWR drivers (and probably elsewhere) are now much more careful when it comes to leaving a station when there are people near the platform edges and that can sadly cause delays at places like West Drayton where all passengers have to walk along a fairly narrow platform to a single exit.  That being said, the Hayes incident happened on a relatively quiet platform.

The most important development recently is not the sensitivity of the doors, but the on-board cameras that monitor the doors at stations.  The much increased numbers of passengers make a single mirror or just looking back much less effective than they used to be - especially if you have a long train and conditions aren't perfect (darkness/fog etc.).  Platform mounted cameras are better but some monitor several doors and the images aren't always too clear, especially when bright low sunlight are evident.  On-board cameras, whilst not perfect, are certainly much better and of course the new trains arriving have them.

If a guard had been despatching that particular train at Hayes then I don't think that particular accident would have happened as the passenger would have been near to them and much more clearly visible, but that's not to say that having a guard is a safer form of despatch as had she been stood at the other end of the train the guard would have had a much worse view and might have made the same mistake as the driver having seen the cant rail light extinguish.

A combination of better cameras and doors that can detect something like a hand, along with better warnings such as the 'sharks teeth' vinyls and platform staff monitoring the passengers all help make train dispatch safer.  The ever rising number of passengers (and the fact they become generally less observant over time) all make it less safe.  I'm not sure there is a magic 'one size fits all' answer.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/buses-to-rescue-strike-hit-commuters-wgv6jnmqs?CMP=Spklr-_-Editorial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheTimesandTheSundayTimes-_-20161220-_-739538727&linkId=32566525

You'll need to be a member to read the whole article but the above and the detail on the first page should give you the idea - buses to be provided and public buildings to be made available for people to work remotely.

I also apologise for the mugshot which greets you!

Not sure one trade union will cross another's dispute line however.  Whilst there will be many bus drivers not in a union, I would have thought most will be.

Soldiers are on standby to drive the buses, I'm not sure an ASLEF picket line would stop them. It would, however, be rather amusing to see them try.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/20/4000-soldiers-prepared-drive-rail-replacement-buses-needed-southern/

I am not sure the Chiefs of the Defence Staff will be overly keen on doing this for a number of reasons.

Generally solders whilst they are trained to drive HGV not many of them will be PSV, most military coach transport is contracted out
Senior defence staff do not like to be involved in industrial action, the fireman's strikes are a good example where they do not provide cover anymore.

If the Government insists then the CDS will undertake the roll as they are under the direction of the Ministers but I suspect they would want it sanctioned by Parliament and not just a Minister.

Using road coaches is possibly not that practical unless the Government intends to use the Police to close motorway lanes and roads to speed convoys of coaches.

And finally its likely to inflame the Unions even more and they may well just walkout indefinitely 

Interesting escalation of this dispute, although it doesn't mention that this will actually happen, only that the MoD is looking at what is "necessary, achievable, and permitted" in terms of military assistance, but adds that they work with all government departments on an on-going basis.

Tim Loughton MP said “When you have an ambulance or fire engine strike you bring in the ‘green goddesses’ fire engines. We need the same for rail strikes.”, which is completely incorrect as we no longer have a fleet of Green Goddesses, which were disposed of from 2004 onwards - the fire services have to make their own vehicles available to military personnel if required.

I also wonder where all this extra traffic is actually going to go. Is May going to whip up some extra road capacity as well?! Where are these mystical spare coaches and buses waiting, or will transport be provided by an Army truck (possibly even a humpety bumpety one!)?

I think that article contains poorly thought out bluster and spin to try to panic the unions and there isn't actually anything of substance contained within and nothing at all will come of it, perhaps with the exception of some private coach companies making a short term killing.

I am note sure why MHG thinks that finding military coach drivers will be easier than finding civilian coach drivers. 

I find it rather disrespectful to our armed forces too.  These are people who signed up (and who are trained) to defend this country, not to drive buses of commuters.  They shouldn't be treated as general skivvies of the Government. 

Of course this is simply political posturing.  There is nothing a certain kind of Tory voter likes more than pictures of squaddies crossing picket lines.  It feeds into their narrative of the country being held ransom by the workers (and a strong Conservative government teaching them a lesson) and helps them feel nostalgic for the 1970s when they would have had an extremely valid point.  These days industrial action in Britain is at historic lows and the Southern dispute is really nothing more than a little local difficultly rather than the powerful forces of the left and the right squaring up against each other as those on both extremes of the political spectrum would perhaps wish. 

Theresa May has already kiboshed this idea, according to reports last night. At least for the time being.

I thought refusing to cross other trades picket lines was banned under the law these days? So can't be encouraged by the rail unions.

The law is the other way round.  A picketer (and the Union) is acting illegally if he/she/they ask someone who is not in the dispute (ie because they are employed by someone different such as a sub contractor) to not cross the picket.  The person who refuses to cross might of course be subject to whatever disciplinary procedure they would ordinarily be subject to if the didn't report for duty but I don't think that they would fall foul of any trade union law themselves.  The Trade Union laws are designed to limit the rights of pickets to prevent someone from crossing a picket not to force any individual to cross a picket line. 

It is clear the actions suggested in that article were never going to happen.

Surely a complete coincidence that that article appeared in the Daily Telegraph?!  ::)

It is an easy mistake two tory MP's says something is going to happen or something should happen and the Daily Telegraph assumes it will happen, because we all know that everything a couple of backbench MP's say will always be taken up by the government immediately even if it is complete fantasy.  That's right isn't it?

Hmm. ::)   When they allegedly asked the army to run 'replacement rail services', I don't think they quite meant this:

(http://pics.imcdb.org/0is113/goldeneyetank7lo9.586.jpg)



Picture from James Bond, by the way.  :-X

That there looks to be one of them new fangled tank engines .

Yes, and 7ft gauge toboot..... :P

If that's the Red Army I suspect certain elements of the RMT/ASLEF will welcome them with open arms and bunches of flowers!  ;)

I doubt if you are right, but it is irrelevant since the red army was dissolved in 1991.  I don't think its successor the Russian Army would be very welcome by anyone.

Don't you believe it!

Blimey this ramps it up a bit! "Today comrades, we fight for the right to close the doors on the train......but tomorrow......"REVOLUTION!!!"  ;D

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/22/rmt-union-baron-uses-kremlin-backed-tv-channel-call-overthrow/

My attention has been brought to a discussion on Twitter - and elsewhere for all I know - which paints a slightly different picture of the situation.

This alternative view seems to have been publicised by a Southern ASLEF driver and can be briefly summarised as follows:

The DOO platform monitoring equipment fitted to the newer rolling stock produces very high quality in-cab images which can be used to support the assertion that the procedure is perfectly safe. The RMT are therefore being 'disingenuous' (AKA lying) when claiming that driver operation of the doors is a general safety hazard. However the equipment fitted to the older Class 377 units has cabling & optics that are unable to provide images which would pass a safety inspection. If the RMT / ASLEF concentrated on this much more specific issue then they might very well have a case that would garner greater public support.

I do not know enough about this to draw a fully objective conclusion. Some of you might like to have a look here (https://twitter.com/richardking0788/status/809731110569644032) and pass an opinion.

 

The images I saw on that twitter stream did not inspire confidence.  Are those the old ones or the new? 

My assumption was the old (377s)

My understanding is that the images are from one or more 377 units. If that is the case then I certainly wouldn't be able to see if it was safe to proceed.

So GTR offer a half-way house?

Always a trained No 2 on a 377, but get their way on the other more modern stock. A No 2 in normal working rostered, but in time of disruption, they may run without until the rostered No 2 can join the service

1099 responses from users of Southern services to a survey by the Association of British Commuters:

https://abcommuters.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/abc-passenger-survey-results-2016.pdf

Some very interesting responses. The group was (I think) self-selecting, with those people unhappy with the current services and concerned at issues more likely to respond than those who are happy with it.   However, it paints a sombre picture that cannot realistically be so negative purely because of the sampling method.

I was thinking that this was another DOO incident, but is it? Don't these trains have Guards? (or whatever they're called in SWT land).   Anyway, be interesting to see the outcome of SWT's investigations and how these line up with the Metro story.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/12/29/children-left-crying-on-platform-as-train-doors-close-without-warning-with-parents-on-board-6350027/ (http://metro.co.uk/2016/12/29/children-left-crying-on-platform-as-train-doors-close-without-warning-with-parents-on-board-6350027/)

"Paul and the children were helping Claire board the train because she’s on crutches after breaking both legs in the summer."  ... Possible scenario:   Mum's off to see Auntie Helen in Bournemouth and can't drive at the moment to Dad and the kids take her to the station to drop her off for the train.  They all go onto the platform to help, and when the train comes in, Dad tells the kids to 'sit over there' or 'stand well back' while he helps mum onto the train. Kids do exactly as told.   Stops at Hinton Admiral are rather short and as Dad's helping mum find a seat she's happy with on the train, the guard / conductor checks, sees no-one anywhere near the train, and closes the door.   

Or conductor sees two children, obviously not wanting to board, and closes the doors without warning, as he always does. A word with him before boarding would have been a good idea. I'm not sure where the idea that the doors closed "much too quickly" comes from - much too quickly for the Leighton's , clearly, but if the train is at its planned departure time and all pax have boarded, why hang around? He could, on another day, have been charged a fare.

Would he have been justified in using the emergency handle here?

Moving back from Hinton Admiral - from the press today:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/31/train-companies-pocket-millions-delays



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4077728/No-wonder-hold-ransom-Rail-unions-amassed-66MILLION-war-chest-s-planned-strikes-today.html

From the Office of Road and Rail. Click  *here* (http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/press-releases/2017/statement-on-gtr-southerns-driver-only-operation) for a link to the full report.

Didn't need the army in the end.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/04/private-bus-firms-come-commuters-rescue-rail-unions-impose-strikes/

Will be interesting to see what percentage of passengers will be able to use them and what the journey times are like in comparison to the normal train.

http://www.1066shrimprail.org.uk/2016/12/joint-statement-issued-by-local-rail-groups/

User group voices ...

The pretext for this strike was about safety and jobs. The independent regulator has ruled that there are no safety issues and we know that no jobs are going to be lost.

This is a political strike and at least one of the union leaders involved (who was apparently prepared to compromise the safety of his other members in another TOC in similar circumstances in return for a pay rise) has already indicated his wish to bring down the democratically elected Government, "drown them" I believe his delightful phrase was.

They are costing people their jobs and home lives and should get back to work.

You may be right about it being a political strike. I am sure there are some in the unions who are keen on making a political point. However, I can't help coming to the conclusion that if the staff did not feel some grievance that is very real to them personally they would not have voted for a strike and they would not be so solidly supporting it.

I also think we need to remember there are two disputes here, one with the drivers and one withe the guards (or whatever they are called).

We have discussed some potential concerns of drivers further up this thread, particularly concerning the quality of CCTV images. It is interesting that in their statement ORR mention image quality, so perhaps this should be a matter for further negotiations.

I do noknow what issues the guards have, but as I have said above there is obviously some real grievance.

I therefore support the view of the joint statement, but suggest that politicians stay well out of it especially from behind the scenes as they usually make these matters worse.

It's true  that buses would have only a fraction of the capacity of an operating train service but "normal" service on the Southern now means something different.

The buses are however running, with helpful drivers doing their best to get through to destinations.

OTC

Well done to the bus companies and their drivers, who are at least giving people the opportunity to get to work and get home again afterwards.

Bustitution as a norm is not sustainable. Given how entrenched both sides (all three when you include the government) now appear to be, it is difficult to see what the solution will be. It will have to end with an agreement between company and unions, with both sides claiming victory and magnanimity in equal measure - even wars end that way unless one side annihilates the other.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/07/sackings-break-ups-lost-business-strike-horror-stories-southern/


............brings it home from the perspective of those affected.

Maybe the settlement will be something like:
1   DOO is accepted on all trains that met Chief Inspector of Railways standards (eg on quality of CCTV images)
2   All trains (maybe with carefully-specified exemptions for short distance trains that only call at staffed stations) have a second person on board.  This could be justified on DDA grounds to save face for the DfT.  (I can’t really see why the TOC’s can’t justify a “Guard” on a train carrying 300 people or more, when they know that passengers feel reassured by the presence of a "Guard" and whose wages will be more than covered by just 1 passenger’s fare and/or revenue from onboard ticket checks).

Agree, the situation is serious and some of the language used by the union side suggests that it is an organised attempt to bring down the government, with the argument over whom controls train doors being only the excuse.

Some more moderate passengers are calling for the dismissal of the strikers and the engaging of replacements to end this sort of nonsense. The "Reagan option" referring to striking air traffic controllers in the USA being dismissed.

The more extreme passengers and groups thereof are talking openly about an organised and large scale non payment of fares and resisting any effort at fare collection by violence if need be.
One suggestion has been the organised and large scale use of expired season tickets, on the grounds that no effective service has been provided for months, and that season tickets up to a year or so out of date should still be valid. Any ticket inspector "silly enough to try and extract fares or fines should be dealt with" and "they cant arrest as all" and even "if a crowd kick to death an inspector, the courts could never prove who did it"

IMO, the government need to do something, and that something should not be giving in to the unions.

Any ideas as to exactly what?

Sack all the staff, maybe, and replace them with army train drivers until new staff can be recruited and trained? As the staff don't work for the government, that falls at the first, before the other impossible bits are considered.

Or pass new laws to ban whatever the union is doing that annoys the government so much? It wasn't in the government's election manifesto, which complicates it a bit, and HMG is going to be a bit busy with Brexit until the next election. But with firm political will and cross-party support in both houses, any law could be in place within a year or so, after which we will see how the striking members get around it.

Or let Southern and the unions thrash out a deal without outside interference. The unions will not, remember, want to give in to the employer, and the longer this goes on, the harder it will get, but it can be done.

Violence is not going to improve things especially if it is directed against those GTR employees who are not on strike. 

Look forward "x" years and isn't it in everyone's interest to have a clean, safe, comfortable, accessible for all, modern railway with trains running to time. Fares set an affordable level, sensible frequency and length of day with seats for almost all of the people almost all of the time, with a team of well paid and cared for staff from humblest up with jobs they enjoy, and whilst some services may receive financial support that should only be moderate, and there should be a return on "investment" - financial, enthusiasm, time, skill for everyone involved

The people are the key.  "I'm proud to have an association with the [yyyy] service. It works really well, we all love it and you should try it" say the operational team and their representatives, the management, the overseeing government agencies, and the passengers be they daily commuters or occasional travellers.  The people in all these groups should be the ambassadors ... and indeed I see elements of that already in so many places; alas, if you look at the press Southern is so far 'gone' with the sides seemingly at war that any movement towards Utopia feels like a visit to cloud cuckoo land.

Agree entirely, but I suspect that violence will break out, probably against those checking tickets rather than against guards or drivers who are working.
Those suffering from Southern are starting to feel that no lawful or peaceful redress is available.

Problem is, on DOO the Union's case has been comprehensively shredded by an independent regulator (although I note, with depressing inevitability, that the Union is now accusing them of all being "Tories", which perhaps gives you an idea of the Union mentality and real aims and objectives), so I'm not sure really what they are expecting, or on what grounds they are continuing the strike?

And I have to say again, ASLEF were prepared to sign up to DOO on other lines in exchange for a pay rise, which undermines their case even further.

As for the other justification, job losses, we've already been told that they're aren't going to be any.

This is as much (if not more) about politics than anything else. The Rail Unions power (such as it is) derives mostly (not exclusively) from their ability to massively inconvenience London and the South East commuter region, and they have been milking it for all its worth for decades......I don't doubt that Bob Crow is looking down (or maybe up!) and nodding approvingly.

There should absolutely not be mass Reagan style sackings, and violence/intimidation from either side is unforgiveable, however don't be surprised if the Government ride the increasing public and business anger against the rail Unions and look to legislate.

The Unions actions are costing people their businesses, jobs, home lives and costing the economy hundreds of millions of £ at a time when we should be emphasising to the World that we are open for business.

Move with the times, or move on elsewhere.

I suppose the train drivers, on board train staff, platform staff could all look for jobs in other industries as lorry drivers, shelf stackers in supermarkets

Why? Not one single rail employee is losing their job, or getting a pay cut.

The same can not be said for the Southern passengers who are being held to ransom by the RMT and ASLEF.

Define affordable....
The housing crisis really isn't the fault of the railway. You should expect fares to be (a lot) higher if you move well away from your work. But I agree they ought to be fair - like a pence-per-mile calculation, so everyone is paying the same for each mile travelled, for example. This needs to be implemented very soon, and a reasonable ppm figure worked out & applied.


That's harder to implement - it'll act just like building another motorway by attracting even more pax.


I think they (operations) generally are better off than most of us already. There are some, almost all the lowest paid that ought to get the living wage, and the fares set above need to allow this

100% agree that an agreement has to look something like that.  The key question that your post doesn't address though is whether the second person on board is "safety critical" meaning that the service can't run without them.  If they are not then even if there is a genuine desire to roster a second person under all normal circumstances  the service can still run without them in an "emergency situation" which of course would include a strike, thereby significantly reducing the Union's future bargaining power.   That is what is at the nub of this dispute.

This dispute IS political from both sides. Government and Unions themselves. Both have stated it!

I cant help feeling though that the ability to run with no second member of staff, ie not safety critical, in an emergency will change over time. If the dispute ended tomorrow with this agreement how long before an emergency becomes 'no member of staff employed' to work as an on board supervisor? People may not lose their jobs but no-one else will be employed to replace them to save money. Maybe not next franchise but what about the one after?

What about other longer distance franchises? If DOO in the way described is agreed, then how long before trains run from say Cardiff or Swansea to Swindon through the Severn Tunnel without a second member of staff? There has to be a solution that will give both sides what is needed. Driver control can work, as on Crosscountry or Virgin trains and gives the advantage of reducing station dwell times.

I would dread to think what would happen if a driver was taken ill between Paddington and Reading with no other crew. The train would be brought to a halt by the cab safety devices but with no announcements how long would it be before passengers would attempt to get out of the train?

How comfortable would passengers feel travelling large distances on other companies with only a driver on board?

Just a thought

The independent regulator may indeed have said that it is safe (subject to conditions) for Drivers to operate the doors, and I agree that ASLEF are on weak ground challenging this.

But there is an entirely separate question as to whether it is safe to operate a train with no “Guard” on board. The incidents at Watford Tunnel, at Westbury with an HST hitting a tree, and at several level crossing incidents all resulted in the Driver being incapacitated and thus unable to carry out safety procedures.  If there is no Guard, who takes responsibility for passenger safety? Seconds count in contacting the signaller and protecting the line.  Who will go on the PA and reassure passengers and make sure they don’t put themselves in danger by alighting etc? 

Are we supposed to rely upon a passenger dialling 999? 

The last two posts imply that we should expect the unions to be our main safety authority, at least in the sense of being able to overrule whatever the government has set up. Really?

Unions certainly have a good claim to a prominent role, alongside operators and other players, but surely they should be making their case to the regulators. If they don't, or if (as it seems) that link isn't working, that needs to be addressed.

I don't think we've seen much from ASLEF themselves on this board.  I did go and look for a statement on their website a while ago, and found nothing - which may explain that.

Today they do have one - new I think. Here it is in full (http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/144625/why_aslef_is_taking_strike_action_on_southern_rail/):

I think it's a little bit muddled, perhaps, and it does not include some points made earlier. It's not quoted because I agree, just so we do see in this discussion what they are saying themselves.

Here are a couple of items from ASLEF's news archive. First, some evidence to a commons committee (http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/100012/100039/163038/aslef__why_doo_is_not_safe/):

And this is Mick Whelan's response to the ORR (Chief Inspector's) report (http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/100012/100039/163212/aslef_s_reponse_to_orr_report/). Not quite as intemperate as his first comments.

What he means by that last point beats me. IEP can do DOO if you want - it's in the requirement. I doubt if anyone would sell you a train that can't, other than as a modification to take it out and fit blanking plates. But DOO-equipped isn't the same as doing DOO, is it?

I'm wondering what card ASLEF will try to play on Merseyrail, where the trains are much shorter.  A large part of their argument now appears to be on the length of trains on Southern.

A level you can afford to pay to commute from the nearest affordable housing to your job.

In view of the widening implications of this particular industrial relations dispute, I've now expanded the heading of this topic to include all such discussion.  :-X

Trains have run between Paddington and Reading with only a driver on board for over 20 years. All the turbo services do so.

A couple of weeks ago, somewhere I can't now find at all (maybe a radio interview?), I read some words of Mick Whelan's which mentioned the risk of prosecution. It was saying something like safety standards have shifted so far that now a driver risks prosecution for a mistake as it it was reckless, and courts are now willing to find guilty and impose prison sentences. Hence they want to make sure they are not trapped into having to make judgements on inadequate views and carrying the can for it. Something like that, anyway.

That would be the background to this, from the Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/southern-rail-chiefs-write-to-train-drivers-in-direct-personal-appeal-to-end-strikes-a3426341.html):
My bolding.

You may want to watch a very good debate with RMT/CEO Horton, an MP on the Parliament Transport Committee and Carolyn Pidgeon from the London Assembly. The MP hit the nail on the head as to the distance between them. Simply whether the second staff member could be missing during disruption for part(s) of journeys

2030 on the BBC News Channel. Caught it purely by chance

A link is here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcnews?rewindTo=current)

A better one, seems it was on local BBC1 at the sane time

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08bmsx7/southern-rail-crisis

As close to a debate as I have seen.

I think you are mistaken, surely there hasn't been any sane time in this dispute?!  ;) ;D

They do, they have an input into the RSSB, ORR etc

Its when they (Unions) believe, rightly or wrongly, they are not being listened to it ends in the current situation.

Not being listened to = "what we say goes, or at least is worth another five grand in our paypackets"

Its no wonder they are beginning to be ignored

As I see it, whilst the all-out strike days are the responsibility of the unions and the blame for the disruption laid at their door, on the other days when there is an overtime ban which causes cancellation of 20-25% of the services, surely the blame for this should be laid at the door of the company. If they cannot run more than 80% of an advertised service without getting staff to work more than their contract hours, to me they are not very good at management.

At least with the "all-out" days the passengers know that nothing will run. On the other days I suspect it's guesswork as to what will and what won't.

Its when ordinary working people believe, rightly or wrongly, they are not being listened to.

Southern do publish (or did) timerables for these days

Given that Southern are now recruiting drivers, might one consequence of the dispute be that Southern drivers in particular, but maybe those of other TOC's too will find that in a year or two time their overall earnings are reduced by a lack of overtime?  And what about those TOC's that rely on rest day working for Sunday?  That has to be even more of an anachronism in this day and age.

Just thought I had better add this link about a passenger being dragged with their hand caught in DOO train.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/driver-accused-of-dragging-train-passenger-along-platform-with-hand-stuck-in-door/ar-BBy6lTk?li=BBoPOOl&ocid=mailsignout

No second person on platform either guard or platform staff

I assume prosecutors believe there was intent on the driver's part here, or at least ignoring the rule book. Not much either could do if this is proven.

http://trib.al/a9V5zb4

.......could prove costly.....

I can fully understand why someone would want to do this, but would Southern be able to refuse travel/decline this gents card in future (for any reason)?

My line of thought are customers who have reclaimed PPI/packaged bank account fees find their accounts can get closed with 30 days' notice. The bank cites a breakdown in their relationship.

Edit: the link describes a Southern commuter "Sean" who reclaimed 50% off his annual season ticket from American Express under a section 75 claim due to the bad service provided by Southern.

I wonder if that fact the Amex UK is based in Brighton (and therefore staffed by people likely to be victims of Southern) is of any relevance.

This could be huge, I foresee many more claims of a similar nature.
I suspect that TOCs may stop taking credit cards to avoid such refunds in future. Meanwhile if anyone is about to buy a season ticket it would seem sensible to use a credit card.

More broadly, does a ToC have to sell a ticket or carry a passenger?  I would have thought that so long as they were not discriminating on the basis of a protected characteristic (ie refusing to provide the service because customer is female, gay, black, muslim etc) they can refuse.  Or does the franchise agreement require them to take all comers? 

That would be a typical response from a TOC - play the man, not the ball.

They may be better off challenging the legality of the strike, and if successful hit the Union with a bill for every penny incurred.

But the strike doesn't appear to be illegal.  I expect Southern has looked very hard at the process of the ballot etc and concluded that too.  If the strike is legal the Union isn't liable for any losses.

The only solution is a negotiated settlement (which would require compromise which Southern might be willing to make but which the neither the Government nor the unions seem able to do at the moment) or an imposed settlement (with new staff if required).

Part of me thinks they (or rather the Government who are pulling the strings) need to make up their mind and either back down on DOO in the interests of getting the trains running again, or else decide that they are going to take the pain and force through a PATCO/Reagan-style resolution.  Problem is the first option whilst probably acceptable to Southern is not to the Government who clearly want DOO on Southern not for its own sake but so that they can impose it elsewhere.  The second option would probably bankrupt Southern.  But the current strikes are not achieving anything except misery.

I am uncomfortable with the Government's role in this.  Southern is a private company.   

There is an RAIB report on this incident. https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/passenger-accident-at-hayes-harlington-station (https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/passenger-accident-at-hayes-harlington-station) One of the learning points is
 

This might well be the reason for the prosecution

As I stated upthread.

ASLEF has suspended their strikes with ACAS-hosted talks tomorrow with a senior HR outsider along with an Abellio(?) Director involved

Are the new talks at ACAS?  All the reports I have seen suggest they are being staged by the TUC.

"Southern to run full train service from Tuesday as union suspends strike action"

My source is the BBC news website, breaking news. I do not think that a link works to the "breaking news" since if subsequently clicked it goes to the THEN breaking news.

No doubt on other media.

This should be the correct story, updated 15 minutes prior to me posting the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38663331 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38663331)

On the issue of DOO, specifically drivers opening and closing doors, in some countries the driver's cab has mirrors. Like so:
(http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/f7/81/12/z19404791Q,Stacja-w-Miechowie.jpg)
But AFAIK they're used to enable the driver to see the signals given by the guard standing on the platform, using coloured "table-tennis bats". (The photo's from an article about how passengers find it difficult to understand differences between various TOCs and agencies etc, just to show some difficulties are by no means restricted to Britain's rails)

I think some UK freight locos have wing mirrors too.

I can see it now: "Mirror, signal, manoeuvre ..."  :)

Discussion of this issue on the BBC this morning, pointed out that you can make a claim if you used a debit card too as there are similar liabilities under "chargeback" - maybe TOCs will only accept cash in future?

Debit card chargeback isn't enshrined in law though. So you are at the whim of your and the merchant's bank.

A money claim via the courts for breach of contract may be a better avenue to explore for those who've purchased season tickets with debit card, cheque or cash.

That's pretty much how the DOO operates on the Thames Valley routes ........................

• Driver checks the mirror on the platform (closes the doors)
  Driver checks the aspect of the signal ahead
  Driver releases the breaks, opens the power handle and the train manoeuvers
  

;D 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4105320/Train-passenger-dragged-60-feet-platform-driver-set-hand-caught-door.html

Seems to be saying that the magistrate refused the case? The crown prosecution also wanted a Crown Court trial...?

That is the case. Obviously considered that the powers of punishment in a magistrates court (max. 6 months imprisonment) were insufficient in this case should he be found guilty.

Magistrates Courts cannot "rule on a point of Law" there is I suspect some Case Law required, its not open and shut (no pun intended), was it the negligence of the Drive? indeed was it gross negligence? was the negligence on the part of the employer ie not providing sufficient training or tools etc to do the job or on the part of the infrastructure provider; indeed was the injured party partially or whole to blame.

This may even creeps its way up to the Supreme Court

The TUC have announced agreement (https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/union-issues/successful-resolution-talks-between-gtr-southern) between ASLEF and GTR Southern, which should lead to an end of ALSEF's strikes.

While we are waiting for the details of this agreement, here's something that occurred to me a little while ago but I never got round to posting.

This issue need not be about safety at all. Drivers are instructed (or required) to close the doors, which removes any reason for people to run uo to the train late, then check for "doors closed". After that they are to check via their TV pictures (or looking directly) that no-one is so close to the train that they might have trapped their hand or clothing. If they can't see that is so, they do not start the train.

Looked at that way, any difficulty with the pictures or with passengers' behaviour on the platform is does not affect operational safety (though it may have other public safety ramifications), but delays the train. Providing extra staff on the train or platform, or other forms of backup, is then down to the TOCs and is in their interest to maintain timekeeping. provided drivers are confident they are not going to have this responsibility for delays dumped back on their shoulders, that looks like a possible solution.

I wonder ...

This is ASLEF's initial brief news release (http://www.aslef.org.uk/article.php?group_id=5333):

it will be interesting what the agreement is.  

If it is that the changes to DOO will be introduced more carefully, with better training and with better risk assessment and more driver and union input into things like CCTV quality, then ASLEF are to be congratulated to their contribution to safety.

If it is that extra money paid to the drivers magically transforms a unsafe method of dispatch into a safe one then I reserve the right to make a more cynical judgement of ASLEF.

That agreement is attached. A comprehensive and conciliatory agreement. Precisely how union/company relations should be rebuilt following sensible discussion and arbitration. The RMT could learn a thing or two from ASLEF about how to best represent their members. Instead, the RMT seem hell bent on using their members as pawns in a political game they've no chance of winning.

Predictably, the RMT's Mick Cash has fired off an invective filled rant in response to ASLEFs agreement with GTR over Southern DOO.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-reaction-to-tucsouthern-rail-betrayal/

The RMT were never going to win this one. They could and should learn a thing or two from ASLEF about how to dispute constructively.

The best description I've seen online about this saga is that ASLEF burgled the RMTs house while they were out on the picket line.

Appendix F is significant and one of the most important parts of the deal.  The DfT line, being followed - under instruction presumably - by GTR (and also apparently by GWR), that existing agreements can just be ignored if inconvenient has been well and truly buried. 

One can only hope there’s now a change of personnel at the top of the railway division at DfT.

One omission as an exceptional circumstance is the ability for the services to run DOO in the event of a strike or overtime ban affecting OBS.  I find that slightly curious.

Do you think that they would have got the agreement signed if that clause was in it?  I don't.  I expect that DfT and Southern decided to prioritise getting DOO working and to kick that thorny issue into the future. 

ASLEF's statement today confirms that intention. So curiously, RMT are now more able to cause disruption than they were prior to the agreement. So if they take any further action then the proportion of trains running will drop back down to the level it was at prior to the start of the roll out of OBS.

I think that actually nothing has changed from Southern's original position. The deal on use of OBS' looks the same as before. Perhaps someone on here can explain what is actually different to the proposals before ASLEF went on strike? I have heard that Drivers have been offered £5,000 one off payment and £5,000 on their salary.

I also think this is LOROL happening again. Once the OBS is in place the company will decide at some later date that the OBS is no longer needed and full DOO will be implemented.

The RMT's warnings sound like Scargill's about closing the pits.

Once implemented on Southern I suspect that it will be rolled out nationally on the same basis. I leave that thought for the future. Imagine trains unstaffed and what a dire situation that could mean to disabled passengers and lone female travellers in particular

The difference appears to be that ASLEF and GTR have agreed the basis on which trains will run without an OBS, and they don't include industrial action by OBS.

As for your last comment, we don't need to imagine what it will be like, because up and down the country many trains have been running without a second person for up to 35 years. In our patch, Thames Valley services for one.  Also Thameslink, Great Northern, Scotrail electrics, C2C, and so on.

I do not know what was on offer to ASLEF before the strike.  However, having carefully read the agreement document below, it seems to carefully address the issues raised further up this thread and some others that were not mentioned.  For example the quality of CCTV on the older stock to monitor the doors.

From where I stand it looks like the two sides sat down together and worked through the issues in detail and came up with solutions that were acceptable to both sides. 

Much as I predicted.

No laws were changed, no mass sackings happened, and peace eventually broke out.

Pools panel verdict: winning score-draw.

Hold on.

The drivers haven't voted on the agreement ASLEF and GTR came up with. There are rumblings of discontent amongst Southern drivers that their union have sold them a pup.

Vote on the agreement is 16th February.

And RMT are still in dispute.

Correct BNM - I meant to limit my verdict to ASLEF, but am watching Match of the Day, and got distracted. I would be astonished if ASLEF's members vote against it in a majority when it is put to the ballot.

Mind you, I've been astonished before. Good goal by Anthony Martial.

AFLEF members have voted to REJECT the deal, perhaps surprisingly.
The union seemed fairly confident that the membership would vote to accept it.

As reported on BBC news website

You heard it here first.  ;)

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38994965):

Very interesting metric ... if 30 people who voted "reject" had voted "accept", it would have gone the other way ... and over 300 who were eligible to vote didn't.  At least the option that garnered the most individual votes won the day, and that gives the people that said "no" the say-so on where this goes now, even through their leaders that to implement it don't agree ... rather smacks of Brexit.   Could have been worse - could have been like the USA presidential election where the winner was the person who came second in the number of individual votes.

The RMT's response:


Entirely a matter for ASLEF??? Mick Cash really is taking the piss and quite obviously gloating with this statement. Just last week he was accusing ASLEF of a 'shocking betrayal' after the union top brass had hammered out a deal with GTR Southern.

A week is a long time in politics. Seems the same is true in union relationships.

Except the US election  (unlike trade union ballots) is decided by an electoral college system, not individual votes, so that's not really comparing apples with apples.

Oh for sure - I'm saying that the British system of apples seems far better to me than the American system of oranges.   Of course, in the USA it's the system they've grown up with an love, and I'm are that if Hilary Clinton had gained more electoral college delegates, but fewer individual votes, than Donald Trump he would have been the first to graciously accept defeat.

Boy, is my face red!

New laws affecting ballots for industrial action come in today.

50% of those able to vote need to vote & where critical services involved, at least a 40% vote in favour required of those able to vote. I think that's right....

I tend to agree on that.  The threshold needs to be possible to achieve but not easy to achieve. 

Devils Advocate.

Interesting about ballot laws. Will Parliament also decide to do the same for elections? I am sure less than 40% of those eligible to vote actually voted for this current Government

As long as you do as many countries, and make voting compulsory, then you might crack it

Works for me Chris B. The vote was hard fought for and to not vote is a waste of this effort. Besides if I vote then I can justly complain. Because I have taken part in the process at  ;)least

yep, totally agree!

An election is A vs B, rather than A vs do nothing or status quo. Leaving the outgoing bunch in power is not a good idea in general (lots of examples why around the world). Of course referendums (e.g. on constitution changes) have often been given such a threshold, with better justification...

If at first ... another agreement has been reached between Aslef and GTR. According to Aslef's statement (http://www.aslef.org.uk/article.php?group_id=5401):

Southern are showing a news item with identical wording to Aslef's, ending with:
"The result of the referendum will be announced on Monday 3 April. Until then, ASLEF and GTR intend to make no further statements."

And the BBC's news item says they have heard no details of this agreement. For the Aslef leadership, another agreement voted down would be highly embarrassing, and they would certainly prefer for its terms to be kept secret for now. I guess GTR will see no point in releasing details either, since it would been seen by drivers as pretty aggressive and in the lead up to the vote GTR want to be mates with their drivers.

The BBC have now (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39288790) got their hands on a copy of the new agreement (apparently by taking a picture from far away and blowing it up!). They say the improved cameras are now to come in a year sooner, and on-board staff will get safety (PTS) training.

They show the (fuzzy) text listing the reasons to operate with no second person (OBS) - here's how it compares to v1.1 (new text in italics):

This agreement does not apply to circumstances where the OBS's turn is on the "no cover" list (i.e. not covered on the daily or weekly alteration sheet). Before applying any of the following the reasons below, the Resource Manager/OBS Coordinator must try to provide a replacement OBS for the service, or part of the service, where reasonably practicable. ensure that all other options for OBS provision have been fully exhausted.

The following are circumstances when Control may require the service to run without OBS:

a) OBS absent/ late on duty, or unauthorised absence, at the start of or during the duty, and where there is no alternative cover available to run this service.
b) Late notice OBS sickness / absence / emergency leave and where there is no alternative cover available to run this service.
c) OBS delayed whilst ‘passing’ to work.
d) OBS displaced by late running or service disruption.
Should c) or d) occur, arrangements must be made to restore OBS presence as soon as is reasonably possible.
e) OBS unable to continue duty having commenced booked diagram (for example through sickness or assault having to leave the service to assist wirth a customer service issue / incident / emergency).
f) Driver or OBS error.
(e.g. If the OBS is left behind by driver and/or OBS error, or OBS misreading roster/diagram)
g) OBS has to leave the service, to cope with a passenger incident or civil emergency.
h) Should coverage of duties be impacted as a consequence of widespread or sudden high intensity sickness, the parties commit to working together to deliver the best possible service arrangements for the benefit of passengers.

That's roughly eight reasons cut down to five (not relettered in the above).

What's the meaning of 'passing' in c) above?

my assumption is that it is travelling to the train you are going to work on another service (which is then delayed).  Differs from clause a) which would be when the OBS is late signing on at the start of their shift. 

Yes, "passing over" as a SWT Guard explained to me is when they are effectively travelling as a passenger. Can also occur at the end of a shift when travelling back to their home depot.

So, an interesting test and a very clever move by the RMT.  They have announced a further strike date for the day after the ASLEF vote result is announced.  I am sure they will be using this to check whether the new agreement means drivers do not have to drive in the event of strike action, which most commentators believe is the case.

That could be the worst of both worlds for Southern.  Not only do they not run the trains, but they pay the drivers too. In addition, Southern may find that fewer OBSs turn up for work, as their action will actually have an impact.  There's not much point them striking currently as the services run anyway.

 

Déjà vu. The members are revolting. ASLEF drivers with Southern have rejected the second deal their union bosses agreed with GTR. One wonders how tenable the positions are of the ASLEF top brass when they appear to be so at odds with their membership. 

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

This time, the margin was very narrow, and ASLEF are not calling for further strikes. Talks are scheduled. Third time lucky?

Let's face it, ASLEF wouldn't want to call members out on a slim majority of voting members, and the company may find some small concession which may clear the way for an agreement. If only we could have a second try in all political issues.

You'll need to move to Scotland for that.  ;)

The direction of the vote is more important than the subject or country.

If last June's vote had been "no" by a few percent, the leave faction might have shut up for a year or so but would soon have found some new justification for renewed jumping up and down and clamouring. Conversely but symmetrically, I have never heard of any provision or even expectation in a newly-independent Scotland for a vote to rejoin British union.

http://www.aslef.org.uk/article.php?group_id=5453

Of 953 voting papers sent out, 718 were returned
372 returned papers to vote no (39.0%)
346 returned papers to vote yes (36.3%)
235 papers were not returned (24.7%)
All voting papers returned were valid (no spoiled papers)

I haven't seen any data published with regards the distribution of votes around depots, grades, etc, though I'm sure such data would be useful to all parties as they work forward from the current situation.

If you ignore those not returned, the % for/against exactly mirror, according to the press, the Brexit vote.

"Conversely but symmetrically", the SNP didn't even shut up for 5 minutes after losing the last "once in a generation" referendum and are still jumping up and down despite their being no increase in enthusiasm for another referendum or independence. :-)

No increase? Some polls are showing a decrease, even with Brexit looming.

However, perversely, Labour are about to be routed in their local elections in favour of the SNP.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40017451):

At the Great Western Railway Community Rail conference in Barnstaple today, Mark Hopwood (Managing Director) informed us that agreement has been reached with GWR drivers and conductors.

The train driver will open the doors when the train arrives and stops at a station.  The conductor will thus be able to complete any ticket checking / selling transaction and then commence the dispatch safety procedure, including closing the doors.

This is a win / win, as the driver does not have additional responsibility for dispatch, and the conductor does not have to worry about standing at the appropriate panel to open the doors immediately upon arrival at a station.  Also, the new trains, with far greater flexibility in door opening technology, will mean that the conductor will not have to be at any specific door to enable them to open the appropriate ones, as is the case now.

And he subsequently explained to me that IEPs will have each stop on a service programmed into its software, thus the door release at each station will know which coaches to release the doors on, including stations needing SDO

Thank you for that additional detail, ChrisB.  :)

Meanwhile it would seem Southern still have their public relation problems....

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/sthtwit.png)

Amazing the difference a comma makes.

Could be intentional!

Grammar and punctuation can be critical. As can using the correct case of character. Those who insist on tweeting in lower case only need to remember that there is a difference between "Helping my Uncle Jack off a horse" and "helping my uncle jack off a horse".

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/chris-grayling-threatened-with-judicial-review-over-southern-rail-report-delay-a3576056.html

I also think HM Opposition will look for an opportunity to apply pressure on the Government, especially if they smell blood of a Minister or Sectary of State in trouble 

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41733653):

Shouldn't cause as much disruption on Southern as their ASLEF drivers have been offered a 28.5% payrise over 5 years...and their drivers are very much ASLEF. The RMT aren't happy...

Maybe not this time, but the agreement struck seems to suggest that a strike isn't one of the few "exceptional" reasons that can cause a train to run without a second person. Which could mean that once effective the strikes would again have more impact.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41903419):