Forum menu
Extensive travel around the world, and I can say that conductors are a thing of the past. OK they still have them on some trains in India (Hyderabad to Bhadrachalam overnight anyone?), but then this train also has a hole in the floor to poo through, so I think they are still holding onto Victorian ways of doing things.
I'd rather there were several, but given the likelihood that the only other railway company operative might be incapacitated in the event of a crash, one additional should be the minimum.Northwind - Member
A simple question... If you're in a train crash, would you rather there was a guard on the train?
In the train collision in the severn tunnel in 1991,the driver of the second train was trapped in his cab, the driver of the first train didnt know he had been crashed into,as he phoned to report a posible derailment and the guard of the second train was also injured it took many hours to get injured passengers out of the 4 mile tunnel with no internal lighting, just the train emergency lighting, who wouldnt want more railway trained safety staff then.
Bring back the old slam door trains and we'll close the doors ourselves. Nothing more to argue about then.
Unlike us lot, who have to struggle to get in.
Tosserz
Poor baby.
The 1991 Severn crash was caused by Driver error IIRC. So I that's an argument *for* automated trains.
Only if you have data showing how many crashes have been averted by drivers.outofbreath - Member
The 1991 Severn crash was caused by Driver error IIRC. So I that's an argument *for* automated trains.
I come back to my earlier suggestion that what's needed in this kind of dispute is a court
I am constantly surprised by how readily people are to give up their rights.
DrJ - Member
I come back to my earlier suggestion that what's needed in this kind of dispute is a court
I am constantly surprised by how readily people are to give up their rights.
But in this case it's very clear the union are using safety as a red herring, there are also no job cuts/staff reductions they are striking over what they think might happen. If they want to play the safety card then their views should be inspected and claims tested along with the rail company.
remember
Bear in mind, if these changes go through the RMT will have less power to stop trains if it calls strikes in future. Because services will be able to run without one of their conductors on board.
I'd like my trains to be run in a safe and practical manner
I'd rather there were several, but given the likelihood that the only other railway company operative might be incapacitated in the event of a crash, one additional should be the minimum.
If that is what is required then great, still doesn't answer the massive question as to who opens the door.
The RMT have already accepted a compromise that has drivers opening doors (Scotrail)
Of course the rail companies can re-purpose the guards elsewhere, but these jobs are finite: One guard I spoke to said they were offered the option to apply for certain alternative positions within Southern, but the position to applicant ratio was something like 1:100.
People still need a place to work and restricting their earning opportunities just breeds resentment if a viable alternative isn't put in place.
Look at the coal mines: The biggest mistake there wasn't closing the mines, that had to happen, sooner or later; the biggest mistake was not making suitable provision for those kicked out of their jobs.
outofbreath - MemberThe 1991 Severn crash was caused by Driver error IIRC. So I that's an argument *for* automated trains.
TBH if the tech were there I'd be happy with driverless trains, as long as there were still guards.
Look at the coal mines: The biggest mistake there wasn't closing the mines, that had to happen, sooner or later; the biggest mistake was not making suitable provision for those kicked out of their jobs.
That and communities who felt that like father like son was a rule, heard of a local politician who had to deal with a lot of it, they wished they could have answered honestly to the what will my son do when you close my industry - the answer was whatever they want.
Redeployment, retraining etc. is important, so is progress employing people should add value to the job and to the person. I remember some very French roadworks where they turned the traffic lights on when the guy with the stop/go board went off for his fag break.
In this case the union needs to be honest about what they are fighting for and see if the public support them. Strikes will not solve this one without public support.
In reality this one goes all the way back to education and equipping people for a vastly different world that exists now. 30 years ago my family farm employed up to 8 men to manage about 300 acres, now my Dad, uncle and 1 other do the majority of work on nearly 1,400 acres. time change and people need to be prepared to change too.
I come back to my earlier suggestion that what's needed in this kind of dispute is a court
I am constantly surprised by how readily people are to give up their rights.
Going to court is not giving up your rights. It is actually a really important right in itself.
It's asking someone impartial and experienced in managing disputes and conflicting viewpoints in the context of the law to resolve the position of two parties who can't agree.
This is exactly what the court system is for (see divorce, debt collection, patent disputes, land disputes, all sorts of employment disputes, health and safety prosecutions, ...ad nauseum). If you live in the UK you are already subject to the rule of its court system because it is part of the system of civil and criminal law in the country in which you live.
One of the great privileges of civilised society is the ability to access an impartial court system that allows disputes to be resolved without violence or bloodshed.
i refer you back to the death of a young lady who fell betwen a train and platform at james street station liverpool raib report and ORR reports
But this is not relevant to HOW you resolve the stand off. If anything it underlines the importance of not turning this into a "who folds first" competition and getting someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome to make that decision.
It is of course relevant in terms of the arguments that could be presented (i.e. it may form part of the pro guard argument) but the whole point is neither side is giving an inch so someone who doesn't have any other motive than the correct outcome should examine the evidence and draw the conclusion.
CFH - yes. Modern trains with integrated safety systems. Nowhere do they use the same type of trains driver only that this dispute is about.
Industrial relations courts were tried by labour in the 70s. Failed but I don't really remember why. IIRC "in place of strife" was the name of the policy.
Interesting piece. I have no way of knowing how true but it rings true to me.
https://medium.com/@xciv/southern-rail-transport-secretary-misleads-passengers-1371dd775ab0#.qeqjs750b
Sort of interesting but not sure what it actually brings to this discussion, the franchise is different to most.
He does like a good whinge though
Let’s be clear, the Thameslink fleet is being replaced with new class 700 trains?—?incidently I should add that these ‘state of the art’ trains that Mr Grayling talks about have no wifi, no power sockets and not even any tables!
State of the art commuter trains that were procured by.. the DFT and not fit for the modern world of business.
On a line at capacity priority one needs to be getting people form A to B. If you can do that and provide tables and power great. If that would mean more trains, less people per train then ticket prices will go up.
Guard training takes around 3 months and includes safety critical training (staff allowed on to the track, can isolate power, can evacuate a train) and route knowledge?—?the new OBS role has none of this.
To be clear again, a job (not a specific role) has been guaranteed until the end of ‘franchise’, because staff are contracted to GTR and GTR can’t guarantee anything beyond that.
I wonder what will happen at franchise end?
What really matters here are the risk assesments and the procedures for emergency that are in place. Do they provide a greater or lesser risk to the passengers on the train or not. Can somebody with the 3 month training do any of the things they are trained to do in the evironment they are working in.
Nobody can promise anything after the end of the franchise, somebody may come along with a full driverless solution requiring only cleaners etc. They may choose to train OBS to do more or less or anything else.
The key point about driver operated doors is if the level of risk has changed from the current position (person on train determining if the doors are safe to be closed and move the train away to a different person on the train determining if the doors are closed and safe to move.) If the risk level has increased then it is an issue, if there are mitigaing steps that can reduce the risk they should be implemented.
If you are a wheelchair user and you need to either board or alight at an unmanned station the second member of staff is pretty essential for operating the ramps.
GTR say that the OBS is not mandatory for a service to run, in fact their latest maps appearing on trains tell people to book in advance.
At this stage they are not proposing to remove the member of staff from the train, here is the main problem the union are going after the what might happen and trying to use safety to justify it. It's entirley sensible to book ahead if you need extra assistance where possible as it means the person on the train is expecting to need to use ramps etc. and where you expect to be on the paltform.
At this stage they are not saying they are going to remove the extra person from the train - but obviously thats the plan for the future.
Risk assessment stuff makes fairly scary reading as well
At this stage they are not saying they are going to remove the extra person from the train - but obviously thats the plan for the future.
If it's obvious the role will be removed, ipso facto that role is not required. Otherwise it wouldn't be obvious that the role will be removed.
So, whose sitting on a platform waiting for a train?
"I am constantly surprised by how readily people are to give up their rights."Going to court is not giving up your rights. It is actually a really important right in itself.
It's asking someone impartial and experienced in managing disputes and conflicting viewpoints in the context of the law to resolve the position of two parties who can't agree
So what is the outcome? Can a person be ordered to work under the conditions specified by a court?
outofbreath - Member
The 1991 Severn crash was caused by Driver error IIRC. So I that's an argument *for* automated trains.
Because track circuits were unreliable in the unusually wet tunnel environment (10 to 20 million gallons of water are pumped out per day),[1] axle counters were used instead. The official report into the accident[1] could not reach a firm conclusion, but speculated that the cause was either:an unaccountable error on the part of the Sprinter driver, or:
technicians in the relay room at Severn Tunnel Junction had reset the axle counter while investigating the earlier fault, thus clearing the signal for the Sprinter.
The network at the moment can't support driverless trains, there are too many variables.
If there's no driver who can check if the gates of a user worked crossing have been closed properly if the person crossing doesn't ring back? Or get out to pick up traffic cones/scaffold poles/a dog that has been placed/lost on the line? Or examine the line after report of a track defect? Or follow up on a report of something hanging from a tunnel roof?
The network at the moment can't support driverless trains, there are too many variables.If there's no driver who can check if the gates of a user worked crossing have been closed properly if the person crossing doesn't ring back? Or get out to pick up traffic cones/scaffold poles/a dog that has been placed/lost on the line? Or examine the line after report of a track defect? Or follow up on a report of something hanging from a tunnel roof?
Nothing to do with who opens the doors.
Interesting article in the Guardian. I rather liked the idea of taking industrial action through letting all the passengers on for free.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/14/southern-rail-strikes-franchise-unions
Just done a bit of checking on industrial relations courts. Introduced by Heath and only lasted a few years, Basically it didn't work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Industrial_Relations_Court
...but conveniently ignores that the burden of lost revenues is ultimately borne by tax payers. Still I am sure he enioyed the application of Goodhart's Law.
So?
Basically it didn't work
I wonder why?
Ahh, yes, because:
the unions had a policy of not co-operating with, and in many cases ignoring, the court.
...but conveniently ignores that the burden of lost revenues is ultimately borne by tax payers. Still I am sure he enioyed the application of Goodhart's Law.
In which case the government would have an interest in resolving the dispute.
The NIRC was controversial throughout its short life. Donaldson, the president of the court, was known to have Conservative leanings, having stood as a Parliamentary candidate for the Conservative party and, indeed, having contributed to the drafting of the Industrial Relations Act.
The NIRC was controversial throughout its short life. Donaldson, the president of the court, was known to have Conservative leanings, having stood as a Parliamentary candidate for the Conservative party and, indeed, having contributed to the drafting of the Industrial Relations Act.
So you're saying the idea NIRC is sound as long as an impartial president is chosen.
In which case the government would have an interest in resolving the dispute.
It certainly gives the government an interest in getting people back to work in the short term. Maybe they're prepared to sacrifice that that for the long term good of the business. Or maybe (more likely) they have no levers to control this situation. The Unions have every right to strike, the RW firms have every right to want to modernize their businesses.
...and passengers have a right.......oh, screw them.
"...and passengers have a right.."
They just pay for it all, whey would they matter?
outof breath. I'd rather a co operative approach not adversarial. Workers own a % of the business or are on profit share at decent % so have a stake in the business being profitable. Shareholders being prevented from asset stripping. Proper workers representation on the board and proper pensions schemes.
You know - the sort of thing they do in most European countries
It certainly gives the government an interest in getting people back to work in the short term. Maybe they're prepared to sacrifice that that for the long term good of the business. Or maybe (more likely) they have no levers to control this situation. The Unions have every right to strike, the RW firms have every right to want to modernize their businesses.
The unions managed to come to a resolution with the other TOCs...
I think the argument about modernizing the business is cobblers, actually. Unfortunately, positions are now so entrenched it's difficult to see a resolution.
...and passengers have a right.......oh, screw them.
I can think of several fundamental rights, but the right to a convenient train service isn't one of them.
tjagain - Member
outof breath. I'd rather a co operative approach not adversarial. Workers own a % of the business or are on profit share at decent % so have a stake in the business being profitable. Shareholders being prevented from asset stripping. Proper workers representation on the board and proper pensions schemes.[b][u]You know - the sort of thing they do in most European countries[/u][/b]
POSTED 3 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST SHARE
Hahahahahahhahahahahhahhaaaaa.
What a crock.
Have you been in space? I appreciate you are back here after some sort of suspension, but you must have been living on Venus since late June.
The UK voted for a return to the 30's and 70's and have sweet FA to do with Yurope... and I mean ANYTHING. Culture, attitude, aptitude, intellect, shared ownership of industry.
Jezebels blouse.
"The unions managed to come to a resolution with the other TOCs..."
Effectively they have in this case too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37600476
Its all sorted, they're just taking it out on passengers for a while.
"The unions managed to come to a resolution with the other TOCs..."Effectively they have in this case too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37600476
Its all sorted, they're just taking it out on passengers for a while.
From the article you quoted:
[i][The RMT] said it would seek to overturn the new contracts and planned industrial action would still go ahead.[/i]
And the current strike is by ASLEF, not just the RMT.
"From the article you quoted:
[The RMT] said it would seek to overturn the new contracts and planned industrial action would still go ahead.
And the current strike is by ASLEF, not just the RMT."
Only in the new year they'll be making the case that the status quo is dangerous. And a status quo that almost all their members have signed up to.
Much harder sell.
Only in the new year they'll be making the case that the status quo is dangerous. And a status quo that almost all their members have signed up to.
Seeing as you have a crystal ball, I suggest you buy some lottery tickets.
"Seeing as you have a crystal ball, I suggest you buy some lottery ticket"
It's already happened. New contracts come into effect in the new year.
Denmark and Norway have mandatory workers representation on boards
Finland and the UK do not
Days lost to strike action per 1000 employees 2009-2015
Norway 76
Denmark 69
Finland 50
UK 23
Perhaps the link is not as clear as is sometimes suggested?