Train Operating Companies v Trade Unions dispute - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[stuving]

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^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report into that incident 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^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) or otherwise). That's what failed at Hayes. The fact that most GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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.

[ChrisB]

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

[Chris from Nailsea]

Particularly the thin straps on many Christian Diors accessories? 

[stuving]

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

That's not the point. Rather obviously. That RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report quotes this:

53... the relevant sections of the rule book and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) dispatch procedures which are explained in the following paragraphs.
The rule book
54. Section 3.8, ‘Dispatching a DO (Driver Only) train from an unstaffed platform’ in Module SS1 (‘Station duties and train dispatch’) of the railway rule book,  GE/ RT80007 describes the following actions for the driver:

• check that the platform starting signal, if there is one, is showing a proceed aspect;
• make sure all passengers are clear of the train doors;
• check the whole length of the train to make sure that it is safe to close the doors, using the monitor or mirror, if provided.  After you have closed the doors, you must check the door interlock light is illuminated;
  
• you must then carry out the ‘train safety check’ (as referred to in Section 3.2.) and only start the train if it is safe to do so.

55. Section 3.2 in the same module of the rule book states that all train drivers must carry out a ‘train safety check’ before departure from a station by making sure that:

• the train doors are properly closed;
• nobody is trapped in the doors, for example by clothing; and

• it is safe to start the train.

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:

77... The rule book and FGW procedures are clear that a driver should not start a train if a passenger is in close proximity to it (‘close’ proximity is defined as being near to or a small distance away from the train - no values are quoted).

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.

[Chris from Nailsea]

I am also reminded of the very sad case in Liverpool, 22 October 2011, discussed here on the Coffee Shop forum.

[ChrisB]

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

That's not the point. Rather obviously.

Sorry, the point I was making was around guards being necessary on trains per the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers), and the likelihood of them spotting these straps better than the driver....

[Tim]

And Jubilee and Central.  So, yes, for the time being, sub-surface lines are all driven by 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^▸ (Automatic Train Control) allows.

[IndustryInsider]

I think the message coming out of the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report into that incident 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^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) or otherwise). That's what failed at Hayes. The fact that most GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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.

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.

[TaplowGreen]

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!

[GBM]

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.

[TaplowGreen]

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^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) 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/

[Electric train]

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^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) 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^▸ (Off Peak Day Single [ticket type] (formerly 'Cheap Day')) 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 

[chrisr_75]

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^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) 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/

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^▸ (Member of Parliament) 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.

[Tim]

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.

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. 

[ChrisB]

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.