Given up with Southern Rail.
Discussion
SWTH said:
As a railwayman I am acutely aware of safety. From my very first day this phrase was drummed into me:
If it's not safe, don't do it.
There is no such thing as "reasonably safe" - either it's safe or it isn't. If you cannot (or, as I suspect will not) grasp that most basic railway operating principle, then further debate with you is pointless.
The phrase you are looking for is as safe as reasonably possible. No activity is completely safe.If it's not safe, don't do it.
There is no such thing as "reasonably safe" - either it's safe or it isn't. If you cannot (or, as I suspect will not) grasp that most basic railway operating principle, then further debate with you is pointless.
SWTH said:
No, the dispute really is about safety, followed by protection of the grade.
Why would RMT make such a big issue about something which THEY are not responsible for? 
It's like me going on strike because I think accountancy standards aren't don't present a true and fair view. Their not my responsibility. As long as I do what I'm supposed to I'm not going to get into trouble etc etc
I certainly understand that there has to be a compromise between operational efficiency, expense, safety and succesful customer movement on the railway. However, it's difficult to understand how removing a highly-trained staff member from every conductor-managaged train and replacing them with random ticket checks where the staff could quite possibly be on the train for only one or two station stops and have no priority other than enforcing tickets at the highest possible rate has any contribution to make towards the safety side of the equation whatsoever.
Don't get me wrong; guards can be a colossal pain in the arse. They delay trains whilst trying to look up some obscure fare, they sit in the back cab and chat with their mates, they do all sorts of annoying things. But I firmly believe there should be a staff memember (other than the driver) on every single train, and I believe that on saftey grounds. I've seen all too many situations where the presence of staff has downgraded a catastrophe to a mere problem, in all sorts of ways. Passenger surveys consistently bear out that customers want to se more staff, not fewer. They want people in ticket offices who can help with the Machievellian fares system, they want a guard who moght step in to fend off the eight pissed idiots causing havoc late at night, they want someone to call armed police to meet the machete-weilding Somalian gang who've just "steamed" the entire train-load of punters for their wallets and watches (this is no exagerration, by the way. Merely one of my own personal experiences)
In other news, no mention of the fact that Southern are guilty of, if nothing else, atrocious missmanagement of staffing levels if by their own admission the only reason their railway has run even as badly as it has in recent years is because they were relying on overtime and rest day working? Given that it takes months to train new on-train staff and a year and a half or so to pass out a driver, what the hell have they been doing to let staff levels fall to such a hand-to-mouth state?
Don't get me wrong; guards can be a colossal pain in the arse. They delay trains whilst trying to look up some obscure fare, they sit in the back cab and chat with their mates, they do all sorts of annoying things. But I firmly believe there should be a staff memember (other than the driver) on every single train, and I believe that on saftey grounds. I've seen all too many situations where the presence of staff has downgraded a catastrophe to a mere problem, in all sorts of ways. Passenger surveys consistently bear out that customers want to se more staff, not fewer. They want people in ticket offices who can help with the Machievellian fares system, they want a guard who moght step in to fend off the eight pissed idiots causing havoc late at night, they want someone to call armed police to meet the machete-weilding Somalian gang who've just "steamed" the entire train-load of punters for their wallets and watches (this is no exagerration, by the way. Merely one of my own personal experiences)
In other news, no mention of the fact that Southern are guilty of, if nothing else, atrocious missmanagement of staffing levels if by their own admission the only reason their railway has run even as badly as it has in recent years is because they were relying on overtime and rest day working? Given that it takes months to train new on-train staff and a year and a half or so to pass out a driver, what the hell have they been doing to let staff levels fall to such a hand-to-mouth state?
Countdown said:
SWTH said:
No, the dispute really is about safety, followed by protection of the grade.
Why would RMT make such a big issue about something which THEY are not responsible for? Edited by Nik da Greek on Wednesday 13th July 12:16
Edited by Nik da Greek on Wednesday 13th July 12:17
eldar said:
The phrase you are looking for is as safe as reasonably possible. No activity is completely safe.
Indeed, but the point is that there cannot be differing degrees of safety within a railway operating environment. The RSSB sets the standard as laid out in the Rule Book and that is what the railway works to. Therefore you can either use 'safe' or 'not safe' - there is no in-between.Nik da Greek said:
And saftey is their responsibility. SWTH is right that "If you can't do it safely, don't do it" is the railway mantra. You are alos told from Day One that you are responsible for your saftey, your mates' safety and the customers safety at all times. It is made your own personal responsibility by the terms of the Rulebook and therefore by the terms of your contract
I'm sorry for being pedantic. If Southern Trains cut staff, and it results in safety breaches, who would be held responsible (assuming that Guards were not negligent)? Yes, staff are required to follow the safety rules, the rules which are set out by management. If the rules themselves are flawed then it is management, NOT staff, that are liable. For RMT to use this as a figleaf when their real concern is about staff losing jobs, is disingenious.Edited by Nik da Greek on Wednesday 13th July 12:16
Edited by Nik da Greek on Wednesday 13th July 12:17
SWTH said:
eldar said:
The phrase you are looking for is as safe as reasonably possible. No activity is completely safe.
Indeed, but the point is that there cannot be differing degrees of safety within a railway operating environment. The RSSB sets the standard as laid out in the Rule Book and that is what the railway works to. Therefore you can either use 'safe' or 'not safe' - there is no in-between.I'm a lapsed Southern (Uckfield) commuter having given up on them in December after several years and moved across, ironically, to South Eastern for a further £2,500 ish p.a. I say "ironically" because Govia run both. Perhaps you get what you pay for (ChrisGr31 has explained to me why there's a difference) but there is a big difference between the two, far beyond that suggested by the relative PPMs.
The thing is: I've spent enough nights in the rain, "barking at the moon" angry whilst waiting at Oxted for a rail replacement bus that never comes. I've had enough of paying to stay in town the night before an important meeting because I just don't trust the trains. Before I started doing that, I had missed enough of those career-important meetings. I've missed enough bath/bed times with my daughter and evenings with my wife. I've worked enough weekends to catch up on time lost due to rail disruption. It HAS affected my health.
So, these days I'm left somewhat cold by the arguments about DOO, whether the Southern problems are the fault of management, Horton specifically, something cultural in the staff body, privatization, government, or some combination of all of the above. I've heard all of the clichéd excuses for delays and spent too long immersed in the rage that surrounds a vocal minority of Southern commuters.
The simple fact is that Southern is failing and I don't get any sense that there's anyone grown up enough to fix it. If this was a proper business "customers" would be deserting in droves and that would be a problem. But it isn't a proper business, so it won't happen.
And so all I can do is take myself out of it. I pity those that don't have that choice.
The thing is: I've spent enough nights in the rain, "barking at the moon" angry whilst waiting at Oxted for a rail replacement bus that never comes. I've had enough of paying to stay in town the night before an important meeting because I just don't trust the trains. Before I started doing that, I had missed enough of those career-important meetings. I've missed enough bath/bed times with my daughter and evenings with my wife. I've worked enough weekends to catch up on time lost due to rail disruption. It HAS affected my health.
So, these days I'm left somewhat cold by the arguments about DOO, whether the Southern problems are the fault of management, Horton specifically, something cultural in the staff body, privatization, government, or some combination of all of the above. I've heard all of the clichéd excuses for delays and spent too long immersed in the rage that surrounds a vocal minority of Southern commuters.
The simple fact is that Southern is failing and I don't get any sense that there's anyone grown up enough to fix it. If this was a proper business "customers" would be deserting in droves and that would be a problem. But it isn't a proper business, so it won't happen.
And so all I can do is take myself out of it. I pity those that don't have that choice.
Countdown said:
I'm sorry for being pedantic. If Southern Trains cut staff, and it results in safety breaches, who would be held responsible (assuming that Guards were not negligent)? Yes, staff are required to follow the safety rules, the rules which are set out by management. If the rules themselves are flawed then it is management, NOT staff, that are liable. For RMT to use this as a figleaf when their real concern is about staff losing jobs, is disingenious.
Unfortunately you are incorrect in your assertion that the union member will not be held responsible if they have followed the rule book, or at least alledgily incorrect. There is at least one case going through the courts where there was an incident involving injury to a passenger. The internat inquiry and I believe the RAIB cleared the member of staff. However he is personally being prosecuted by the authorities. That case is probably one of the biggest reasons for the unions concern.Countdown said:
Does the RSSB make the use of guards mandatory?
The RSSB writes the rule book, which governs our actions as traincrew. Of course this also includes rules for when operating DOO trains, as well as the more usual form of driver & guard operation. I have to say that I don't know the full details of exactly who decides a particular route or type of traction is safe to operate DOO - as I don't work in an area where DOO trains operate, it's not something I am entirely familiar with.However, it is very clear in the rule book that in areas where trains are not operated DOO, then a fully qualified guard with the correct route and traction knowledge is very much mandatory.
Check out the RSSB's website for more info: http://www.rssb.co.uk
Countdown said:
Does the RSSB make the use of guards mandatory?
No they don't, in fact they say that DOO and they say there is no increased risk from DOO. However if you look at who is on their Board you may conclude they are not as independent as you might like. For example Charles Horton of GTR Southerns parent is a board member, as is the CEO of Angel Trains, the COO of MTR etc. Personally I would prefer a report from the RAIB on the safety of DOO
Chrisgr31 said:
Countdown said:
Does the RSSB make the use of guards mandatory?
No they don't, in fact they say that DOO and they say there is no increased risk from DOO. However if you look at who is on their Board you may conclude they are not as independent as you might like. For example Charles Horton of GTR Southerns parent is a board member, as is the CEO of Angel Trains, the COO of MTR etc. Personally I would prefer a report from the RAIB on the safety of DOO
Are there any accidents/safety issues which have occurred on DOO trains that would have been avoided, or the impacts mitigated, if a Guard had been present?
rs1952 said:
Trains, unlike road vehicles, run on rails. Trains cannot leap frog over each other. You can quite easily have a "broken down train" with another half a dozen stacked up behind. The announcement that you will hear is that your delay is due to a broken down train, but it might not actually be yours that has broken down.
Seemingly quite minor failures can cause a train to be red carded; whilst, for example, you might be quite happy to take your car out if the central locking has stopped working, a train won't be going anywhere until such a fault is fixed.
Moving "broken down trains" can also cause a problem, especially if, for example, the fault is one that has automatically applied the brakes. I experienced one such failure a couple of years ago after going to Bristol for a drink with some retired railway colleagues, intending to catch the last but one train home. The departure board ominously only said "delayed" rather than giving an expected time of arrival - this is railway (and airline BTW) code "we don't know when it will arrive either..." Luckily I knew who to ask at Temple Meads to find out exactly WTF was going on, to be told " a fitter is on his way to Flax Bourton." That told me all I needed to know - the train wasn't going anywhere in the immediate future. The other punters were told no more than "broken down train" but they wouldn't have been particularly better informed if they were told - the bloody train had still broken down. And of course, everything else coming up from Taunton and Weston Super Mare that night was stuck behind it as well. Of course, if the media had picked up on it they would have found some punter to complain that "nobody gave us any information,"
In my day on the railways things were arguably less safe but easier to deal with. There would usually be a spare engine and crew not far away to drag the breakdown out of the way. Those days have gone. There used to crossovers where trains could be diverted to the adjacent line to get past the breakdown - many of those have gone as well. Even longer ago in the late 90s I was trying to get home from Bristol to be told that there was a broken rail at Keynsham (that's K-E-Y-N-S-H-A-M for our older brethren...). The line between Bath and Bristol was being run as a single line because there are no crossovers left over that 11 mile stretch of railway, a situation that caused absolute chaos when things go wrong. This, however, was thought to be a "good thing" by those who were ripping out "superfluous" bits of railway infrastructure from the 1960s onwards. Such is progress...
Short-forming - Thameslink will probably be damned if they do and damned if they don't. Which would you rather they did, run a four coach train rather than eight, or simply cancel the bloody thing altogether?
I get your points, and I'm not under the illusion that all trains will work perfectly 100% of the time, but yesterday Thameslink had 14 trains, all out of service, during peak hours. Seemingly quite minor failures can cause a train to be red carded; whilst, for example, you might be quite happy to take your car out if the central locking has stopped working, a train won't be going anywhere until such a fault is fixed.
Moving "broken down trains" can also cause a problem, especially if, for example, the fault is one that has automatically applied the brakes. I experienced one such failure a couple of years ago after going to Bristol for a drink with some retired railway colleagues, intending to catch the last but one train home. The departure board ominously only said "delayed" rather than giving an expected time of arrival - this is railway (and airline BTW) code "we don't know when it will arrive either..." Luckily I knew who to ask at Temple Meads to find out exactly WTF was going on, to be told " a fitter is on his way to Flax Bourton." That told me all I needed to know - the train wasn't going anywhere in the immediate future. The other punters were told no more than "broken down train" but they wouldn't have been particularly better informed if they were told - the bloody train had still broken down. And of course, everything else coming up from Taunton and Weston Super Mare that night was stuck behind it as well. Of course, if the media had picked up on it they would have found some punter to complain that "nobody gave us any information,"
In my day on the railways things were arguably less safe but easier to deal with. There would usually be a spare engine and crew not far away to drag the breakdown out of the way. Those days have gone. There used to crossovers where trains could be diverted to the adjacent line to get past the breakdown - many of those have gone as well. Even longer ago in the late 90s I was trying to get home from Bristol to be told that there was a broken rail at Keynsham (that's K-E-Y-N-S-H-A-M for our older brethren...). The line between Bath and Bristol was being run as a single line because there are no crossovers left over that 11 mile stretch of railway, a situation that caused absolute chaos when things go wrong. This, however, was thought to be a "good thing" by those who were ripping out "superfluous" bits of railway infrastructure from the 1960s onwards. Such is progress...
Short-forming - Thameslink will probably be damned if they do and damned if they don't. Which would you rather they did, run a four coach train rather than eight, or simply cancel the bloody thing altogether?
That simply isn't good enough. Whilst piecemeal repairs are to be expected, to get to the point that you have to take over a dozen separate trains out of action at one time shows that you're not in good control of the service you're supposed to be providing.
A few broken down trains is to be expected. Over a dozen shows incompetence.
There is a lot more wrong fundamentally with the railway, and most of it is down to the DfT meddling and micro-managing.
I don't know if this is the situation at Thameslink, but the franchise I work for has some severe stock shortages. We get moaned at by the passengers on a very regular basis for not having enough carriages available. Here's a very basic example of why we don't:
Our current stock is old (on average age some of the oldest on the network) and as such needs repair and/replacement. When a Train Operating Company (TOC) wishes to order new stock the process takes several years. First the need for extra/new stock is identified, then the TOC goes to the DfT to inform them of their intentions. They also go to the ROSCOs (ROlling Stock operating COmpany) to start sorting out a leasing deal. The DfT will want to know projected passenger numbers (whether there are passengers for the new trains), whether there exists the paths for the new trains within the timetable, what spec the trains will be, how many of them the company need, where the older rolling stock that the new trains will replace is supposed to go and whether it represents any alteration to the terms of the franchise, as well as a million and one other details. The DfT will then go back to the TOC, tell the TOC how many it is prepared to allow them to order, and what spec the DfT would like. The DfT will probably also take some of the older trains away from the TOC and allocate them elsewhere as it sees fit.
So now the TOC is in a position where the DfT have decided the spec and the number of new trains, and into the bargain the stock they were going to cascade elsewhere within the franchise to ease overcrowding or maintenance pressures will be gone. In the meantime a couple of years has passed and the problems are getting worse. By the time a ROSCO and a manufacturer have agreed a deal with a TOC (potentially more than one TOC if several TOCs are looking to buy similar but undoubtedly slightly different versions of the same train) to supply new trains it could be several years since the initial steps to ordering new trains. The trains that were supposed to be replaced have been kept going, usage has gone up, maintenance has been cut back to essential and safety related repairs only because of the requirement to have as many trains as possible available at all times, and having just a single unit fail outside of the normal planned maintenance can wreak havoc on the timetabling and running of that day's trains.
Finally, the new trains arrive (possibly just as the franchise ends) and then it's all back to square one as the new franchisee looks at ways of increasing traffic....
I don't know if this is the situation at Thameslink, but the franchise I work for has some severe stock shortages. We get moaned at by the passengers on a very regular basis for not having enough carriages available. Here's a very basic example of why we don't:
Our current stock is old (on average age some of the oldest on the network) and as such needs repair and/replacement. When a Train Operating Company (TOC) wishes to order new stock the process takes several years. First the need for extra/new stock is identified, then the TOC goes to the DfT to inform them of their intentions. They also go to the ROSCOs (ROlling Stock operating COmpany) to start sorting out a leasing deal. The DfT will want to know projected passenger numbers (whether there are passengers for the new trains), whether there exists the paths for the new trains within the timetable, what spec the trains will be, how many of them the company need, where the older rolling stock that the new trains will replace is supposed to go and whether it represents any alteration to the terms of the franchise, as well as a million and one other details. The DfT will then go back to the TOC, tell the TOC how many it is prepared to allow them to order, and what spec the DfT would like. The DfT will probably also take some of the older trains away from the TOC and allocate them elsewhere as it sees fit.
So now the TOC is in a position where the DfT have decided the spec and the number of new trains, and into the bargain the stock they were going to cascade elsewhere within the franchise to ease overcrowding or maintenance pressures will be gone. In the meantime a couple of years has passed and the problems are getting worse. By the time a ROSCO and a manufacturer have agreed a deal with a TOC (potentially more than one TOC if several TOCs are looking to buy similar but undoubtedly slightly different versions of the same train) to supply new trains it could be several years since the initial steps to ordering new trains. The trains that were supposed to be replaced have been kept going, usage has gone up, maintenance has been cut back to essential and safety related repairs only because of the requirement to have as many trains as possible available at all times, and having just a single unit fail outside of the normal planned maintenance can wreak havoc on the timetabling and running of that day's trains.
Finally, the new trains arrive (possibly just as the franchise ends) and then it's all back to square one as the new franchisee looks at ways of increasing traffic....
Tragic thing is that even though the Thameslink 319s were thrown together in the mid 90s with an envisaged operational lifespan of a mere ten-year stopgap, and even though they've been caned to within an inch of their miserable lives and many of them will no longer even achieve 100mph, they're still more reliable than class 377/387s. Or indeed anything with "Bombardier" in front of the unit number
Greshamst said:
I get your points, and I'm not under the illusion that all trains will work perfectly 100% of the time, but yesterday Thameslink had 14 trains, all out of service, during peak hours.
That simply isn't good enough. Whilst piecemeal repairs are to be expected, to get to the point that you have to take over a dozen separate trains out of action at one time shows that you're not in good control of the service you're supposed to be providing.
A few broken down trains is to be expected. Over a dozen shows incompetence.
The peak is the time of maximum demand, and that is when non-availability of stock really shows up.That simply isn't good enough. Whilst piecemeal repairs are to be expected, to get to the point that you have to take over a dozen separate trains out of action at one time shows that you're not in good control of the service you're supposed to be providing.
A few broken down trains is to be expected. Over a dozen shows incompetence.
The trouble is, in these days of an "efficient" railway, there is no spare capacity; no trains just idly sitting around in sidings for days on end just waiting for the odd occasion now and then when they might be of use.
The railway suffers particularly from this sort of thing when special events take place. Castle Cary station, for example, is usually a quiet backwater of a station in deepest darkest Somerset, until one long weekend every year when Michael Eavis turns his dairy farm into a pop festival site. Then umpteen thousand punters who aren't seen there from one year until the next suddenly turn up moaning about overcrowded 2-coach trains. They have an air show at Dawlish from time to time and the same thing happens there - Joe Public and his wife carping about lack of capacity and how the railway ought to find some extra trains from somewhere. Just but two examples of a wider problem.
Of course, should the railway reintroduce some surplus capacity and have it sitting around in sidings doing nothing for months on end then Joe Public, his wife, and especially the media, would then be bleating on about the expensive waste of taxpayer's money in keeping this stuff sitting around doing nothing.
Welcome to the railway that you are prepared to pay for (V8 fettler excepted, of course - he wants to pay for even less)
Countdown said:
V8 Fettler said:
The biggest issue with UK railways is the failure of strategic management over the long term. Or - more precisely - the complete lack of any meaningfully competent management over the long term.
That seems to describe the current situation with Southern Rail perfectly. Do you agree that management should be held responsible for the current situation?Current TOC management should certainly should carry the blame for many current management issues, including failing to manage the unions and apparently failing to introduce DOO from a position of strength.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff