Great Western Coffee Shop

Very interesting series of interviews - Andy Mellors (SWR), Mick Tosh (RMT), Paul Clifton (BBC) and our Bobm.  Don't need to listen all the way through - hear the start, then jump to 30 minutes and 1 hour of 30 minutes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05rdtyt

Personal view - on the face of it, the dispute largely comes down to trust, with SWR suggesting there will always be a second person on the train who will always look out for the safety of the passengers first and foremost, and the RMT saying that's what they want too.  

The difference stems from the SWR suggestion that is there's a last minute problem with providing that second person (e.g. (s)he has got held up on their previous service) that the train - in the London Suburban area - can start without that second person.  The RMT see that as potentially the thin end of the wedge; there seems a lack of trust of SWR's statement that this is only planned to happen when there's a last minute issue.

Of course, we have seen situations where something occasional becomes more common place than we would like.  Taking a wider and longer view, it seems like a question of trust.  And it seems it's not only SWR, bearing in mind that four other train operators are involved in industrial action with similarities today.   In the case of SWR, the trains that there's disagreement over don't come into service for a further 18 months, and I do wonder if there are other ways that the parties could work towards a common agreement without actions on either side that damage the case for rail - its passengers, its staff and its companies - into the future.

The RMT have only one position in this dispute, and won't *negotiate* - it's their position or none.

Is that the royal 'we'?

DOO has been with us for over 30 years on the national network. Why shouldn't it become more commonplace? New trains have more and better safety systems then those currently running DOO.

I've never bought the 'safety' argument put forth by the RMT. The RSSB have shown that to be spurious. I understand the RMT wishing to protect jobs. They have that guaranteed for the life of the SWR franchise.

Is that an opinion or do you have inside sources that tell you that authoritatively?


In my opinion, the lack of trust is not helped by the prosecutions of rail staff following incidents on Merseyside and at Hayes. 

I thought the idea of the RAIB was that we should get away from a blame culture to one of finding the ways of preventing accidents.  Instead it has become as well as prosecutions. 

Not intended to be taken as such. I have seen situations (nothing to do with trains) where something occasional becomes  more common than I would like.  And I suspect you (dear reader)  could think of such a situation in your life, making it "we".

Did you tell your Mum that you liked ... [ mashed potatoes / peas / bananas / anchovies ] ... and found that you got them so often you got tired of them.

Possibly for reasons similar to those that explain the presence of trained staff on commercial aircraft?

I'm quite happy for the on-train staff to be serving teas or selling tickets - as long as a safety-trained presence is there for times of emergency.

Unfortunately, thats not good enough for the RMT. They rejected that at Southern, although they wanted to go driver only in disruption too, so a complication

I'm not quite sure why you are linking the RAIB to prosecutions. They don't apportion blame, nor say yay or nay to prosecutions.

Where's there's a suspicion that someone was at fault to the extent of criminality, it's right that the relevant bodies (Police, Health & Safety Executive, Crown Prosecution Service) investigate and, if necessary, charge.

Those investigations are needed to ensure public confidence. The Merseyside incident resulted in a guilty verdict. Hayes incident, not guilty. Both correct verdicts based on all the evidence.

What has trust between union and TOC got to do with investigating possible criminal acts?

Agreed. The RAIB, like the AAIB, is there to examine the evidence of an accident, to the end of helping to make sure that no-one else makes the same mistake. Names are not mentioned, although "driver/pilot" is an obvious pointer. The law enforcement agencies examine much the same evidence to the end establishing if any laws were broken, and if so, by whom, to enable the Crown Prosecution Service to press charges against wrongdoers. I am not aware of any case where evidence gathered or opinions expressed by an investigating branch has been presented as evidence in a criminal prosecution.

Of course, the same evidence will often be gathered by the two different investigatory agencies, but the interpretation of that is different. Suppose an accident occurs whilst a driver is opening a chocolate bar. The evidence is clear, as a video recording shows the driver diverting his gaze from the window to the recalcitrant wrapper.

The RAIB find that the accident happened because the driver's attention was diverted, and recommends that TOCs issue rules to forbid the opening of food packaging while controlling a moving train.

BTP find that the accident happened because the driver's attention was diverted, and consider whether this constitutes a criminal action or omission in breach of any law.

Trust between unions and TOCs is not an issue in either case. The union may support the driver in any negotiations as to his continued employment, and/or provide legal assistance.

I was not.  I was pointing out the fact that even though the RAIB was created to get to the truth in a no blame context, there still continues to be culture of criminal investigation first and to prosecute someone who is found to be at fault without considering the wider circumstances.  That rather defeats the object of the setting up the RAIB in the first place. 

The prosecution of the railway staff at Hayes in particular has poisoned any debate over further DOO heavily use suburban services.  If the reaction been one of trying to make the system work better instead, then a debate might have been possible. 

Remember where the unions have come from.  One of ASLEF's first acts when newly formed was to employ a KC to defend a driver who was put on a manslaughter charge after the Hexthorpe rail accident in 1887.  The KC was able to show that it was the failings in the way the company worked that made it impossible for the driver to do his job safely. 

So rather than try and fix the problem of safe DOO train dispatch from platforms, we prosecute staff who make a mistake when trying to do a difficult job not made easier by the tools they have been given.  Why are we then surprised when staff (drivers and guards) resist further DOO?

In the Hayes incident the criminal investigation and prosecution came after the RAIB investigation. The incident was July 2015, RAIB were informed a month later. Their report was published June 2016. The driver's first court appearance was January 2017.

With that time line I find it difficult to believe that the criminal investigation came first. Especially as it was a full month before the RAIB was even informed of the incident.


That's opinion not borne out by evidence. In their report into the Hayes incident the RAIB said, "we have found no evidence to suggest that driver only operated trains cannot be dispatched safely."

That report also mentions eight recent incidents where train dispatch was a factor. Four of those occurred when despatch was carried out by a second member of staff.

Both the ORR and RSSB have carried out extensive investigations into the safety of DOO. They've both concluded that, when the correct procedures are followed, DOO is a safe method of train operation.

The RMT should concentrate on protecting the jobs of its members, in the very limited number of cases where redundancies are expected. They can't truly believe that the RAIB, RSSB, ORR are all wrong on DOO safety can they?