Today's problem with the Bakerloo

[melikepie]

A friend of mine was upset today that there was a restricted service on the Bakerloo today with not helpful announcements up the line. TfL seemed to indicate otherwise. What was going on?

[Deleted]

RMT and ASLEF have told their drivers to walk down each train and check each car individually for passengers when detraining. I believe this is a dispute over the removal of distpatch staff at Queens Pk, Harrow and Stonbridge.

[Deleted]

I asked about this but was told it was because customers were holding the doors open or getting their bags caught

Edit by Londonstuff: exact duplicate post deleted.

[Deleted]

I travelled on the Bakerloo Line today and all passengers were advised to change at Queens Park.

I also saw Mr Crow at work outside St James's station, in relation to another dispute

XF

[melikepie]

So was this an impromptu strike or is it set to continue?

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2013 22:08:07 GMT @xercesfobe said:

I also saw Mr Crow at work outside St James's station, in relation to another dispute

XF

Believe that is to do with agency staff being made redundant after LUL has stopped using a contract with an agency to staff Gunnersbury, Kew Gardens and all LUL managed stations Queens Park - Harrow

[Tomcakes]

Whatever it is still seems to be the case today - severe delays earlier.

[Deleted]

"Operational issues" according to LUL.

[Deleted]

Why dont they just hire ordinary staff not poxy agency staff

[Deleted]

The ability for LU to introduce staff at a location at short notice to assist is not at issue. LU have the SRT who could be drafted in within minutes if not a few hours to staff those stations and thus give a normal service. There is a bigger picture I just wonder if the fare paying public can see it. I doubt it.

[railtechnician]

I suspect the travelling public have little or no interest in the bigger picture in the light of above inflation fare increases over many years, years of poor service at weekends etc and a number of LU related disputes over the last decade. Bottom line is that everyone is being squeezed to a greater or lesser degree and though we are all supposed to be in it together some are much better off than others. I feel bound to say that LU staff have little to grumble about in the great scheme of things although they do have some valid issues. Unfortunately they do not help themselves by alienating the customers who ideally might like to see regular and reliable services seven days a week. New trains, new signalling and upgraded stations etc are nice but don't really matter a jot if the services are unreliable or unavailable and squeezed commuters (in more ways than one) probably have far more to be concerned about than the reasons why.
Of course the true bigger picture is beyond discussion in this place because much of it lies in the political domain.

[cso]

Platform man at Hammersmith was tonight announcing delays due to "Operational Reasons"

[DWS]

Jan 16, 2013 21:21:24 GMT @bronzeonion said:

Why dont they just hire ordinary staff not poxy agency staff

Agency staff are cheaper, to hire and fire.

[Deleted]

I had the misfortune of having to use the Bakerloo yesterday after staying at a friends in Queens Park.

I was waiting for quite a while before a train finally moved out of one of the roads up the line. A terminating train was standing in the platform for a long time as a driver checked all the carriages etc. This in turn caused at least 2 trains to be backed up as they came in in quick sucession after the first one departed.

I hate the fact that LU are continually held to ransom by the unions. There are hundreds of people that would love to be given the opportunity to work for LU either as a driver or station staff member yet many (NOT ALL!!!) employees think nothing of striking, working to rule etc at the drop of a hat - causing severe disruption to the fare paying members of the public.

I only hope this current situation can be resolved sooner rather than later.

[Deleted]

This is not drop of a hat. Concerns were voiced. There was some dangerous incidents. They were not resolved and could happen again as the safeguard to reduce the risk is not in place.
This industrial action puts that safeguard back.
What LU should do to reduce the delay to the customer is provide station staff to assist the train operator to detrain.

As to your other points Mikey it is pointless spoonfed waffle.

[Deleted]

How is this industrial acton affecting other lines, what about detraining at Wembley Park on the Jubilee line, Harrow on the hill on the Metropolitan line, Barking on the District line.

De-training does not just occur on the Bakerloo line

[Fahad]

My understanding is that the Bakerloo is the only one where there is currently no timetabled allowance for detrainment, and so a detrainment will result in a train going into the sidings late and holding up the trains behind

[Deleted]

Jan 17, 2013 20:14:25 GMT @rbisko said:

This is not drop of a hat. Concerns were voiced. There was some dangerous incidents. They were not resolved and could happen again as the safeguard to reduce the risk is not in place.
This industrial action puts that safeguard back.
What LU should do to reduce the delay to the customer is provide station staff to assist the train operator to detrain.

As to your other points Mikey it is pointless spoonfed waffle.

Pointless, spoonfed waffle - Ah ha ok (A nice, polite response there :. I suppose I am not allowed any form of an opinion on what I experience and feel?

So you disagree that the unions hold an extremely high level of power over LU? Or that the people that use the service on a daily basis are inconvenienced on a far too regular basis due to various different strikes/work to rule agreements?

I am all for upholding safety standards - who wouldnt be? But it always seems to me that the minute the unions do not get their own way the toys get thrown out of the pram and they strike or cause some form of delay/inconvenience.

[phillw48]

This is only the T/Ops following the rules to the letter. These are not union rules but rules laid down by either TfL or the department of transport. A work to rule is always the most effective means of industrial action.

[railtechnician]

Jan 17, 2013 19:23:25 GMT @mikeyr1234 said:

I had the misfortune of having to use the Bakerloo yesterday after staying at a friends in Queens Park.

I was waiting for quite a while before a train finally moved out of one of the roads up the line. A terminating train was standing in the platform for a long time as a driver checked all the carriages etc. This in turn caused at least 2 trains to be backed up as they came in in quick sucession after the first one departed.

I hate the fact that LU are continually held to ransom by the unions. There are hundreds of people that would love to be given the opportunity to work for LU either as a driver or station staff member yet many (NOT ALL!!!) employees think nothing of striking, working to rule etc at the drop of a hat - causing severe disruption to the fare paying members of the public.

I only hope this current situation can be resolved sooner rather than later.

While there are hundreds of people who would love to work for LUL until one is in the job all most really know is experience as a member of the travelling public and the idyllic schoolboy dream.

When it comes to any job at the sharp end of LU, duty responsibilities and H&S are key and must be considered above all else. While it is annoying for passengers to be delayed one must see such delay from the wider angle, as I mentioned before politics has much to do with the issues in question.
I'll never condone strike action, which seldom if ever produces a 100% satisfactory result for either side of a dispute and usually upsets the 'customers'. However, I would back to the hilt any member of LU staff following the rules, regulations and procedures to the letter of the law and not just the spirit no matter what impact that has upon services where duty responsibilities and health and safety are concerned. Some might see it as 'Jobsworth' at work but believe it when I suggest that, like it or not, it sometimes has to be that way to protect both the customers and the staff who are at the mercy of the politics of the organisation.
When it comes down to brass tacks it's all about proper and effective management from the top management echelon to the very bottom management echelon of the company and sometimes the two are not in sync. There is usually some leeway between the letter and the spirit of any rule, regulation or procedure but sometimes there can be none due to management intransigence which might threaten the livelihood and career of an employee by instructing her/him to do one thing while expecting her/him to do another and that is the crux of many a dispute at LUL.

On this particular issue blame LUL rather than the unions unless there is a strike in which it would be fair to be upset with both sides.

[railtechnician]

Jan 17, 2013 23:23:37 GMT phillw48 said:

This is only the T/Ops following the rules to the letter. These are not union rules but rules laid down by either TfL or the department of transport. A work to rule is always the most effective means of industrial action.

Yep I'm in 100% agreement with that, working to rule is the proper way to address an operational issue and doesn't hit employees with loss of pay which can never be made up while demonstrating all that is wrong with an operation or working method!

[Colin]

Seems to be a bit more meat needed on the bones here.....

Removal of detrainment staff is half the issue - the other half of the issue is the removal of the requirement to physically check trains and that is where ASLEF has an issue.

Drivers are now expected to flash the lights on & off, make several PA's then close the doors and proceed into the siding.

The issue then is what happens if & when the driver comes across somebody whilst changing ends. There is a risk of assault, and being on board a train, there is no way of avoiding any such confrontation. That's ASLEF's issue, which they did raise with LU before Christmas.

[railtechnician]

Jan 18, 2013 10:57:53 GMT Colin said:

Seems to be a bit more meat needed on the bones here.....

Removal of detrainment staff is half the issue - the other half of the issue is the removal of the requirement to physically check trains and that is where ASLEF has an issue.

Drivers are now expected to flash the lights on & off, make several PA's then close the doors and proceed into the siding.

The issue then is what happens if & when the driver comes across somebody whilst changing ends. There is a risk of assault, and being on board a train, there is no way of avoiding any such confrontation. That's ASLEF's issue, which they did raise with LU before Christmas.

What, no CCTV in both ends of every car yet?

The issue of detrainment is not new by any means, flashing lights on and off and making PAs is not new, that was done years ago too. Not having platform staff to assist is a recent issue but was not totally unknown in the past although the driver was never supposed to detrain without assistance.

As for assault, all uniformed LU staff are liable to be assaulted and detrainment is just one of a range of circumstances in which a driver might be assaulted. It was not unknown for a driver to walk back to a door that wouldn't close on an unmanned platform. There is also the circumstance in which a driver takes over a train when the only other staff member around is the one who is being relieved and is walking away.

Of course these days customers come with different temperaments more so than ever before and any staff working alone are rightly concerned about personal safety. I have often wondered why the unions have waited so long to address that particular issue for operational staff especially as it highlights a lack of concern by management for its workforce. Staff safety should be fundamental to the job and one cannot help but wonder why the unions didn't fight the reductions of station staff.
Well actually I don't wonder, I have a good idea why but then I admit to being a seasoned cynic.

Interestingly in engineering the safety case was made long ago such that some jobs required staff to be accompanied when attending places where an individual might be assaulted while on duty. I have to say that there are far more dangerous places to work for LU than on station platforms and trains.

[Tomcakes]

I do hope that an agreement is reached - BUT - has there been a change in the risk of assault since drivers stopped doing this 10? years ago?

[andypurk]

Jan 18, 2013 10:57:53 GMT Colin said:

Drivers are now expected to flash the lights on & off, make several PA's then close the doors and proceed into the siding.

The issue then is what happens if & when the driver comes across somebody whilst changing ends. There is a risk of assault, and being on board a train, there is no way of avoiding any such confrontation. That's ASLEF's issue, which they did raise with LU before Christmas.

So, why should drivers on the train be any more at risk of assault than the platform staff aiding with any detrainment.

If someone has been taken into a siding, having missed or ignored the warnings, what are the chances of them being belligerent (as opposed to just asleep)? Remember that the detrainment checks were only introduced as a passenger safety measure, after the incident at Liverpool Street Central line.

Additionally, the procedures changed a lot longer ago than before Christmas (around Jan 2012 if not slightly before), so why has it taken ASLEF so long to raise this issue?

[Phil]

Jan 18, 2013 12:22:22 GMT andypurk said:

So, why should drivers on the train be any more at risk of assault than the platform staff aiding with any detrainment.

Part of this is NUMBERS of staff on the platform and train, as Colin himself has found out to his intense personal cost......

Additionally, the procedures changed a lot longer ago than before Christmas (around Jan 2012 if not slightly before), so why has it taken ASLEF so long to raise this issue?

Perhaps because of a direct issue relating to the procedure - i.e. staff being REASONABLE and not making a fuss - only to find a t/op in trouble. So then the only alternative is to works the rules precisely. And don't forget staff are beginning to be sacked for 'unsafe procedures' brought about by working to 'custom and practice' to keep the service going. D*mned if you do, and d*mned if you don't - no wonder unions are telling their members to stick to the written-down rules at all costs these days.

Working to rule is, without fail, caused by rules being written (or inherited) where there is no possiblity of running a proper service if they are adhered to - not only on LU, but buses, the PO, most building sites and so on. Hence (as stated upthread) why it is such an effective 'wakeup' call when it is applied. No possible chance of disciplinary action because in these cases the rules ARE being followed - to the letter!!

[bruce]

AFAIK '72 stock is not fitted with CCTV unless it has been recently installed.

[andypurk]

Jan 18, 2013 12:42:39 GMT Phil said:

Jan 18, 2013 12:22:22 GMT andypurk said:

So, why should drivers on the train be any more at risk of assault than the platform staff aiding with any detrainment.

Part of this is NUMBERS of staff on the platform and train, as Colin himself has found out to his intense personal cost......

Detraining at Harrow (and Stonebridge Park at least) involved one member of platform staff working from the back forwards, and the driver working from the front backwards along the train, meeting in the middle. So, sure there will be another member of staff nearby, if someone is attacked, but not generally in exactly the same place. So are the risks of an attack really so much lower when detraining in a platform, rather than when walking through a train which is reversing in a siding?

Additionally, the procedures changed a lot longer ago than before Christmas (around Jan 2012 if not slightly before), so why has it taken ASLEF so long to raise this issue?

Perhaps because of a direct issue relating to the procedure - i.e. staff being REASONABLE and not making a fuss - only to find a t/op in trouble. So then the only alternative is to works the rules precisely. And don't forget staff are beginning to be sacked for 'unsafe procedures' brought about by working to 'custom and practice' to keep the service going. D*mned if you do, and d*mned if you don't - no wonder unions are telling their members to stick to the written-down rules at all costs these days.

Working to rule is, without fail, caused by rules being written (or inherited) where there is no possiblity of running a proper service if they are adhered to - not only on LU, but buses, the PO, most building sites and so on. Hence (as stated upthread) why it is such an effective 'wakeup' call when it is applied. No possible chance of disciplinary action because in these cases the rules ARE being followed - to the letter!!

I quite agree that the rules need to be updated when the procedures change, but what happens when there are contradictory rules in place. Of course, this shouldn't happen but that doesn't stop such occurrences.

[Deleted]

the point some of you have missed re the issue of assault is that yes all uniformed staff are at risk but on a station or platform you have an opportunity to remove yourself to a place safety and prehaps have other staff or passengers who may be able to assist- changing ends in a train in a siding if things get out of hand a t/op is on their own with very little option to get away

[rincew1nd]

AIUI, the issue is that if you detrain on a platform it is relatively easy to run away and there may be other people (staff or passenger) around. If an obstinate passenger is found whilst in a siding you're in a small metal box, with no-where really to run away to easily.