How to fix the Southern Rail dispute?

[NDA]

legzr1 said:

Those directly involved in the day to day operation say it is all about safety

Apart from the UK Rail Safety Regulator, the rail company and the train manufacturers.

They seem to manage with driver only trains in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, 30% of the UK and the USA. Oh, and the underground.

[frankenstein12]

NDA said:

legzr1 said:

Those directly involved in the day to day operation say it is all about safety

Apart from the UK Rail Safety Regulator, the rail company and the train manufacturers.

They seem to manage with driver only trains in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, 30% of the UK and the USA. Oh, and the underground.

Oh pipe down. Driverless trains. Are you INSANE!!! Trains need some Einstein level genius who deserves a huge paycheck to drive them!!!

I have ZERO respect for the drivers who keep striking and then going back to work once they are given a huge payrise after claiming its about rail safety.

fk off. If it was about safety you would not demand and take a pay rise and instead would strike till the safety issues were resolved.

[Chrisgr31]

frankenstein12 said:

Oh pipe down. Driverless trains. Are you INSANE!!! Trains need some Einstein level genius who deserves a huge paycheck to drive them!!!

I have ZERO respect for the drivers who keep striking and then going back to work once they are given a huge payrise after claiming its about rail safety.

fk off. If it was about safety you would not demand and take a pay rise and instead would strike till the safety issues were resolved.

Who rattled your cage? Reality is that ASLEF are well aware that they were going to lose the argument on Southern because some trains were already DOO , and other routes were operated by Thameslink using driver operated trains. As it happens the drivers only took strike action for a couple of days and of course operated an overtime ban for a month or so.

They have agreed tighter rules about when trains can operate without a second person on board and of course got themselves a good payrise.

I have actually driven a train in the simulator and I can assure you that it is not as easy as you might think. Yes getting the train moving is relatively easy (well as long as there are no leaves, snow etc) . However getting it to stop at the right point at the right time is a lot more difficult.

They are also working unsocial hours, starting late, finishing late, weekends, they cant drink for x hours before a shift and our responsible for up to 1,000 on their train.

If their union has agreed the pay they have agreed good on them.

[valiant]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that the HSTs were redesigned to have two seats as the original design left no provision for a instructor or manager to sit and observe correctly when training new drivers or assessing existing drivers. (instructors are responsible and accountable for all the trainee's actions so being able to see what the driver sees is kinda important).

[Nik da Greek]

I thought the same, that the second man seat in HSTs had to be included for training accommodation. And not to mention that if you convert to a new traction you ought to be getting assessed drives before signing off as well

Admittedly sometimes these days all you get is a handout with some photos in it but you should be getting assessed drives

[legzr1]

NDA said:

Apart from the UK Rail Safety Regulator, the rail company and the train manufacturers.

They seem to manage with driver only trains in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, 30% of the UK and the USA. Oh, and the underground.

So you didn't read the post I asked you to read?

Rail safety regulator? Is that the ORR, RSSB or RAIB?

Sounds like someone has swallowed the hype

[frankenstein12]

Chrisgr31 said:

frankenstein12 said:

Oh pipe down. Driverless trains. Are you INSANE!!! Trains need some Einstein level genius who deserves a huge paycheck to drive them!!!

I have ZERO respect for the drivers who keep striking and then going back to work once they are given a huge payrise after claiming its about rail safety.

fk off. If it was about safety you would not demand and take a pay rise and instead would strike till the safety issues were resolved.

Who rattled your cage? Reality is that ASLEF are well aware that they were going to lose the argument on Southern because some trains were already DOO , and other routes were operated by Thameslink using driver operated trains. As it happens the drivers only took strike action for a couple of days and of course operated an overtime ban for a month or so.

They have agreed tighter rules about when trains can operate without a second person on board and of course got themselves a good payrise.

I have actually driven a train in the simulator and I can assure you that it is not as easy as you might think. Yes getting the train moving is relatively easy (well as long as there are no leaves, snow etc) . However getting it to stop at the right point at the right time is a lot more difficult.

They are also working unsocial hours, starting late, finishing late, weekends, they cant drink for x hours before a shift and our responsible for up to 1,000 on their train.

If their union has agreed the pay they have agreed good on them.

As with operating most machines you need practice to learn how it operates and so on there is no disputing that. You need to learn how to operate it safely. No dispute. Where i take issue is train drivers claiming they are striking for safety reasons and making out its a highly technical job worthy of a pay check of £70-80k a year for a very easy weeks work and then calling off the strike when offered enough money.

Pilots do similar hours and get paid less and have to do a job that is infinitely more technical and harder than driving a train. A train can only go in one direction.. the ones its tracks run in. As such its a matter of stopping and getting going and cornering speeds in the majority being the skill hurdles you would have to learn.

Claiming its about safety as they always do and then settling for a pay rise shows a complete lack of respect for your job and your customers. Its spineless.

Go on strike if its about safety and don't demand a pay rise and take a pay rise to go back to work. Commuters and the public could at least respect your position and your striking if you were genuinely striking over safety.

Every time the tube workers or train workers go on strike they claim its about safety and every time they go back to work its when they get given a big pay rise. Pull the other one. Its bugger all to do with safety.

[legzr1]

frankenstein12 said:

Oh pipe down. Driverless trains. Are you INSANE!!! Trains need some Einstein level genius who deserves a huge paycheck to drive them!!!

I have ZERO respect for the drivers who keep striking and then going back to work once they are given a huge payrise after claiming its about rail safety.

fk off. If it was about safety you would not demand and take a pay rise and instead would strike till the safety issues were resolved.

Driverless trains? What are you talking about?

If your job is st, your pay is st and t&cs are st then do something about it.

Lose the chip on your shoulder and I might even send you a link to vacancies - I'm sure there are openings for everyone from the intelligent to slaves from the south east.

Interested?

Oh, just had word from a few qualified drivers - they're rather upset at the lack of respect from a stranger without understanding. I've asked them for their patience

[legzr1]

frankenstein12 said:

As with operating most machines you need practice to learn how it operates and so on there is no disputing that. You need to learn how to operate it safely. No dispute. Where i take issue is train drivers claiming they are striking for safety reasons and making out its a highly technical job worthy of a pay check of £70-80k a year for a very easy weeks work and then calling off the strike when offered enough money.

Pilots do similar hours and get paid less and have to do a job that is infinitely more technical and harder than driving a train. A train can only go in one direction.. the ones its tracks run in. As such its a matter of stopping and getting going and cornering speeds in the majority being the skill hurdles you would have to learn.

Claiming its about safety as they always do and then settling for a pay rise shows a complete lack of respect for your job and your customers. Its spineless.

Go on strike if its about safety and don't demand a pay rise and take a pay rise to go back to work. Commuters and the public could at least respect your position and your striking if you were genuinely striking over safety.

Every time the tube workers or train workers go on strike they claim its about safety and every time they go back to work its when they get given a big pay rise. Pull the other one. Its bugger all to do with safety.

How does that little piece fit with fact that, some time ago, money was offered to end industrial action.
This was rejected.
Still about the money?

Money + vague mention of OBS posts was offered.
Rejected.
Still about the money?

Governemnt went into full 'campaign'. Certain parts of the press jumped in. Courts involved at considerable cost.
Still rejected.
Still about the money?

This week, same money + guarantees over extra trained on-board staff (OBS).
Accepted.
Still about the money?

I'm guessing you're neither a qualified pilot nor qualified train driver so any bks you post about it is just that, bks.

For the record, there is a big percentage of drivers earning considerably less than "70 to 80 grand" just as there are a number of pilots earning quite a bit more. I understand it suits your argument to compare recently qualified pilots at one of the lessor airlines with drivers on some of the most intense networks living in the most expensive area. Doesn't make it right though.

[NDA]

legzr1 said:

So you didn't read the post I asked you to read?

Rail safety regulator? Is that the ORR, RSSB or RAIB?

Sounds like someone has swallowed the hype

The RSSB (Rail Safety and Standards Board) says there is no evidence that drivers (rather than guards) operating train doors increases the risk of passenger harm.

The ORR have also made comment:

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/2330...

Sounds like someone is being defensive.

[Nik da Greek]

legzr1 said:

frankenstein12 said:

drivel

sense

you're wasting your "breath". I already explained exactly this several times and he's clearly to dense or too full of his own agenda to be able to understand the simplest facts when presented to him


And as to any of the rail safety institutions operating in a perfect vacuum where SAFETY is a holy grail en-hallowed in policy ... yeah, right. It's just as full of self-interested middle management desperate to protect their short-term contract at any costs, ruled over by the Old Boys Network who will react to whichever Malcolm Tucker rules the corridors of power at any given time as any other massive institution. If there's any time left after their long lunches and self-protectionism then they might sign off a couple of documents promoting safe working. Sometimes they even bear any relation to what happens on the railway.

Charles Horton, the bête noire of Southern drivers is a fine example of higher railway management. He has already ruined one franchise to the point that it was taken into direct government operation and was at one point so bad it was deemed unsalvageable. Yet his connections with the likes of Grayling and other Government cronies got him into the Govia gig... where he still is despite massive evidence of catastrophic miss-management. He is so toxic that the only way he stays in his multi-million pound job is through patronisation from above, and he knows it. He is owned and what he does is so entwined with policy and orders from above that it has nothing to do with safety... or only as a piece of serendipity. It's about saving money and SAFETY is the easiest way of bamboozling the paying public. That was the point the strikers were trying to make all along, but the Dailt Mail reading masses either chose to ignore or just totally missed it


Incidentally, one of my mates killed a woman yesterday. She wandered off the end of a platform and wandered down the track until she found a train to jump under. This is one simple, personal tragedy that on a staffed railway could have been avoided. DOO trains don't only lay off train staff (if you believe they'll still be double-manned in a couple of years' time then you're deluding yourself further) they also lay off platform staff ... because why have platform staff if the trains see themselves away? The company doesn't care if you can buy a ticket from a human, ask a human how to get where you want, expect a human to step in when a pissed scrote is holding you up for your wallet at eleven at night... They genuinely don't give a fk if you live or die, so long as if you do die they can wriggle out of taking the blame.

So, a few years ago that would have been a staffed station and the platform would have sat the lady down and given her a cup of tea in the office. Today, she's dead and another driver has to live with what he's just seen and done. Yet how many threads are there ranting about automatic car park ticket machines... speed cameras... water meter checking... It seems we want humans to assist us in a professional capacity in every single aspect of life. Except on a railway.

Edited by Nik da Greek on Friday 10th November 10:08

Edit for spelnilg an grammer

Edited by Nik da Greek on Friday 10th November 10:09

[legzr1]

NDA said:

The RSSB (Rail Safety and Standards Board) says there is no evidence that drivers (rather than guards) operating train doors increases the risk of passenger harm.

The ORR have also made comment:

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/2330...

Sounds like someone is being defensive.

Defensive?

No.
Not even close.

For the record, and as I've said previously, I have no dog in this fight, I'm hundreds of miles from that delightful city and don't have to work with franchised TOCs.

I'm AM on the frontline, I have personal experience of incidents and I'm in regular contact with those that do work DOO on intensive networks.
I am NOT a fed up commuter who gets their information from certain government agencies and wholly biased publications.

We do agree on one thing though - this is all about money.

Money saved by reducing (and eventually getting rid altogether) the number of safety critical staff.
RMT didn't strike for money.
Aslef didn't strike for money.

Believe it don't believe it. I no longer care. But, some of us posting here have real experience of the railway. Others, yourself included, do not. And we have differing views.

Strange that...

Now, read Niks excellent post above.
Please.

[Countdown]

Legz1

Can I ask why the Unions are protesting about Safety? When they are striking they are giving up £XXX pay per day which can't be easy and yet the argument being put forward is that this is for the safety of passengers (many who clearly feel extremely annoyed by the actions of Unions supposedly for their benefit)?

If and when a fatality happens it won't be the Unions or their members who are held responsible. It will be management. So why are the Unions putting themselves out by striking when the beneficiaries of improved safety (the passengers and the management) aren't bothered?

[tight5]

frankenstein12 said:

i take issue is train drivers making out its a highly technical job for a very easy weeks work

Hello, I'm a little late to this restarted thread.

As a train driver I've got to take issue with this.
From what I've seen, you have no experience of either driving trains or any railway rules ?
So where do you get off telling the qualified rail staff on PH how easy their job is ?
Is it a case of "I've been on a train so I know all about it ?"


Southern ?
I've got nothing to do with them or passenger trains, but my job is hard enough.
You could offer me £100000 to do their job and I would't take it.
I don't really follow the issues with the whole thing, but don't tell me how easy my job is when you have no idea !!!

[tight5]

Countdown said:

Legz1

Can I ask why the Unions are protesting about Safety? When they are striking they are giving up £XXX pay per day which can't be easy and yet the argument being put forward is that this is for the safety of passengers (many who clearly feel extremely annoyed by the actions of Unions supposedly for their benefit)?

If and when a fatality happens it won't be the Unions or their members who are held responsible. It will be management. So why are the Unions putting themselves out by striking when the beneficiaries of improved safety (the passengers and the management) aren't bothered?

When there is a fatality, the driver (and guard if there still is one) will have to go to a court of inquiry.
Not a nice experience, even if you have done nothing wrong.
Unions trying to protect their members (and the public).

[legzr1]

Countdown said:

Legz1

Can I ask why the Unions are protesting about Safety? When they are striking they are giving up £XXX pay per day which can't be easy and yet the argument being put forward is that this is for the safety of passengers (many who clearly feel extremely annoyed by the actions of Unions supposedly for their benefit)?

If and when a fatality happens it won't be the Unions or their members who are held responsible. It will be management. So why are the Unions putting themselves out by striking when the beneficiaries of improved safety (the passengers and the management) aren't bothered?

There's a lengthy reply to this but, put simply, I believe it is about safety with a fair dose of "st, I'm now responsible for all these people acting like lemmings, I can't see him, is that someone trapped or a carrier bag in the wind, if I get this wrong I'm in court for manslaughter, st - £48 a minute for delays, Ive wasted 3 minutes already and have another 73 stops to make. fk, was that a red signal at end of platform?, I'm up at 0155 wonder if I should grab a few hours on the sofa before the kids get in..."

With all that going on would you be surprised if a driver currently operating with a fully qualified guard would relish the thought of DOO + pay rise spread over 5 years?

Fingers crossed, no one dies, no one loses a career or ends up in prison but, if it does happen what's the odds of prosecution for those faceless grey bds pushing for this? 0%? Less?

[legzr1]

tight5 said:

You could offer me £100000 to do their job and I would't take it.
!

Amen.

[Robertj21a]

legzr1 said:

tight5 said:

You could offer me £100000 to do their job and I would't take it.
!

Amen.

But the reality is that there are many people out there who would be very willing, and probably more than capable, of doing the same job for, say, £30,000. Perhaps it's about time that they were recruited as trainees so that, over the next few years, we can better identify what the going rate should be.

[rs1952]

Robertj21a said:

But the reality is that there are many people out there who would be very willing, and probably more than capable, of doing the same job for, say, £30,000. Perhaps it's about time that they were recruited as trainees so that, over the next few years, we can better identify what the going rate should be.

I think there might be a little flaw in your cunning plan.

If what you suggest is true, and there are these people out there who would willingly do the job for £30k, then why aren't the management offering that sort of money and recruiting them by the bucketful, especially when the government is leaning heavily on the TOCs to reduce public subsidy (where appicable, of course)?

Others can list the reasons if they have a mind to because at the moment I just simply can't be arsed.

Perhaps - just perhaps - you haven't got a clue about what you're talking about

[frankenstein12]

legzr1 said:

frankenstein12 said:

Oh pipe down. Driverless trains. Are you INSANE!!! Trains need some Einstein level genius who deserves a huge paycheck to drive them!!!

I have ZERO respect for the drivers who keep striking and then going back to work once they are given a huge payrise after claiming its about rail safety.

fk off. If it was about safety you would not demand and take a pay rise and instead would strike till the safety issues were resolved.

Driverless trains? What are you talking about?

If your job is st, your pay is st and t&cs are st then do something about it.

Lose the chip on your shoulder and I might even send you a link to vacancies - I'm sure there are openings for everyone from the intelligent to slaves from the south east.

Interested?

Oh, just had word from a few qualified drivers - they're rather upset at the lack of respect from a stranger without understanding. I've asked them for their patience

Ohh boo hoo qualified train drivers are upset with some random stranger on the internets lack of respect. They want my respect they should earn it by stopping the bullst claims that they are constantly on strike over safety or pay and conditions when it is rarely ever about safety and 99% about a bigger unjustified pay check.

As to my job.. I actually really enjoy my job its why I have done for so long. I work many more hours a week than train drivers for quite a bit less pay in a more personally dangerous job and yet I dont spend all my time whining about how hard done by I am and demanding pay rises while trying to claim its about safety.