Southern Rail STRIKE details

Does anyone really believe that :
GTR's ultimate aim isn't to have only one person (the driver) on board ?
RMT don't know this and are really concerned about job losses ?

And, when there are DOO trains at unmanned stations, who helps disabled people get on/off ?

happypig said:

And, when there are DOO trains at unmanned stations, who helps disabled people get on/off ?

Click to expand...

Which is a point that people are quite wilfully ignoring here.

happypig said:

And, when there are DOO trains at unmanned stations, who helps disabled people get on/off ?

Click to expand...

CHAPPERS said:

Which is a point that people are quite wilfully ignoring here.

Click to expand...

Presumably the disabled people can't get off. This situation must happen currently on the Thameslink which are all driver only trains. My commute to and from St Pancras stops at Wivelsfield and Balcombe and I've never seen these stations with a member of staff on the platform so presumably the disabled person gets off before or after the stop they want and then the rail company organises a taxi for them (I'm guessing here).

happypig said:

And, when there are DOO trains at unmanned stations, who helps disabled people get on/off ?

Click to expand...

IMHO it should be enshrined in law as a statutory duty of a fully qualified member of staff. And if that means the driver leaving his cab, walking up to twelve carriages down the train, putting in place the disabled ramp, helping the disabled person on or off the train, stowing the diabled ramp away again, walking back up to his cab and doing all his normal station start-up duties, then so be it. Goes without saying that the train will be delayed by at least ten minutes every time a disabled person wants to get on the train or get off again. This is the reality of what is being proposed by GTR. Or are disabled people no longer to be allowed to travel by train? how would it work at Falmer for example, where the conductor currently provides that level of assistance for disabled supporters?

Deadly Danson said:

Could you provide the numbers to back up this claim that you keep making and how it correlates to the amount of trains that have been cancelled?

Click to expand...

It's just trolling again, he can't put up any proof of this because there isn't any

happypig said:

And, when there are DOO trains at unmanned stations, who helps disabled people get on/off ?

Click to expand...

No one, they don't get off unless it is a station with platform staff ?

Buzzer said:

Presumably the disabled people can't get off. This situation must happen currently on the Thameslink which are all driver only trains. My commute to and from St Pancras stops at Wivelsfield and Balcombe and I've never seen these stations with a member of staff on the platform so presumably the disabled person gets off before or after the stop they want and then the rail company organises a taxi for them (I'm guessing here).

Click to expand...

Wivelsfield is impossible for any disabled people as there is no accessible entrance to the platforms, the station is manned but it is on street level, I believe they are advised to go to Burgess Hill if they wish to travel. Balcombe is accessible and manned in the morning (staff permitting) but in 30+ years of working through there I never once gave any one assistance on or off a train.

As if the tories care about the likes of disabled people wanting to travel.

All they care about in enhancing the profit share of their mates, unfortunately they have somehow done a good job of convincing a large enough amount of the British public that this benefits them.

Revisiting this thread after a while.

Are the RMT and Southern still arguing about who is allowed to open doors on trains and still blaming each other?

Ah ok.........

I think the guards dispute is only part of the problem. The whole service seems a bit cranky to me. It might need a revolution in working practices, new trains (increased prices), changed timetables? to get the system working efficiently. Whilst the dispute goes on, everything is in limbo.

Been looking at reports on the RAIB's website, and most of the incidents involving passengers getting injured have been services running DOO (including London Underground).

One worrying report was with a trainee driver and both they, and supervisor doing the training, missed the passenger on both the on-board and station cctv.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/503841/R032016_160229_West_Wickham.pdf

perseus said:

I think the guards dispute is only part of the problem. The whole service seems a bit cranky to me. It might need a revolution in working practices, new trains (increased prices) to get the system working efficiently. Whilst the dispute goes on, everything is in limbo.

Click to expand...

The dispute is a relatively minor part of the whole story which is a significant lack on investment in staff and infrastructure over tens of years, all part of neo liberal policy to cut everything to the bone to increase profits.

The fare increase will be announced soon, that will go down well with the passengers

Ernest said:

The fare increase will be announced soon, that will go down well with the passengers

Click to expand...

lol

the reaction will merely be the argus gets more angry letters. A few half hearted demos and people generally moaning under breath.

Then it will carry on as normal

deletebeepbeepbeep said:

As if the tories care ..................All they care about in enhancing the profit share of their mates,

Click to expand...

Chip-Tick, Shoulder-Tick, Blame Tories-Tick.

wellquickwoody said:

Chip-Tick, Shoulder-Tick, Blame Tories-Tick.

Click to expand...

Tory TROLL appears - TICK

halbpro said:

Is there actually an out here for either side? This isn't a dispute about quantity of pay, hours worked or holiday (at least not on the fact of it), where there's some middle ground figure to be reached. Unless I've missed something, it's a binary choice. The RMT's proposal seems to be, essentially, the system that is currently in place. It's pretty obvious that GTR don't want this system to persist. Is there actually a middle ground that can come about?

Click to expand...

DRAFT FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT
INTRODUCTION
This framework agreement sets out the outline for resolution of the current dispute between Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) and the National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers (NURMTW), following joint discussions under the auspices of ACAS on the transition from the current role of Conductor to a new jointly devised role of Train Services Manager.
PURPOSE & OBJECTIVE
The document sets out the new role of Train Services Manager (TSM) which has been jointly devised and will deliver the customer services and safety critical competencies required for the role and outlines how the role of TSM will deliver the agreed objectives.
The objective of the agreement is to enable:
• The delivery of the customer service objectives of the company;
• A safe and efficient operating system of operation, without the dilution of safety critical competencies, standards or processes, and to create a framework in which the TSM role will operate trains in conjunction with the Train Driver.
• High levels of accessibility to all train services for all passengers, enabling the disabled, elderly, vulnerable and others to be provided with assistance from on-board staff on all services.
SCOPE
This agreement, the job role set out, and the other arrangements apply, and are limited to, all GTR routes where a Conductor currently operates trains.
TRAIN SERVICES MANAGER ROLE (TSM)
The TSM role is devised in order to provide delivery of customer service requirements along with safe and efficient train operation and high levels of accessibility for all passengers on all services. In doing so it enhances the existing role of Conductor. The competencies for the role are set out in the table below. A Job Description for the role will be jointly devised.
TSM COMPETENCY & ROLE MATRIX
CUSTOMER SERVICE SAFETY CRITICAL
• Check, sell, inspect tickets
• Provide information to individual passengers (use handbook to proactively assist customers including commercial route knowledge)
• Announcements throughout journey
• Ensure wellbeing of customers and customer needs (supported by familiarity with traction)
• Patrols and high visibility throughout journey
• Crime prevention
• Producing reports e.g. faults, crowding, delays, criminal activity etc.)
• Monitor train presentation and auditing
• Looking out for vulnerable people and ill passenger needs
• Assist with baggage/children reconciliation
• First Aid awareness
• Assisted travel practical assistance (further clarification required)
• Issue penalty fares (further clarification on framework required) • Train departure (further clarification on framework required)
• Assist Driver
• Operational route knowledge
• Protection
• ECO
• Evacuation
• Fire
• Radio
• Passengers’ safety
• Security
• PTS
• TRTS
• Knowledge of signals
• T.I.S.
• Faults
• Pass Comm
• Hot weather contingency
OPERATION OF TRAINS
Trains in service will be crewed and operated by two staff – a Train Driver and a Train Services Manager who will, in conjunction, have a suite of customer service, safety critical and operational competencies to operate trains, deliver the objectives of the business in regard to customer service, and provide a high level of accessibility on all services.
The operating processes, frameworks and work instructions for trains in service will be clarified, set out and agreed by the relevant parties.
CONCLUSION
Both parties consider that this framework agreement can be a basis on which a resolution to resolve the present dispute can be created and agree to consult their own executive authorities on next steps and development.
ACAS – 15th August 2016
National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers

[MENTION=1416]Ernest[/MENTION], how does this differ from the current role of conductor? Obviously I don't know the ins and outs of what the technical definition is, and was wondering if you could provide some insight?

I also see the points marked "Further clarification on framework required", which I assume means that's where the RMT were willing to negotiate with Southern?

halbpro said:

[MENTION=1416]Ernest[/MENTION], how does this differ from the current role of conductor? Obviously I don't know the ins and outs of what the technical definition is, and was wondering if you could provide some insight?

I also see the points marked "Further clarification on framework required", which I assume means that's where the RMT were willing to negotiate with Southern?

Click to expand...

It's in the operation of trains part, that is the key the RMT are conceding the control of the doors to the driver if it is deemed to be a safe and acceptable way of working