Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,771
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 16, 2018 11:05:03 GMT
I’ve heard figures quoted that there were approximately double the number of SPADs on the Underground as on the national network, for what is obviously a much smaller network. In addition to the other answers, a driver on LU will encounter far more signals in a shift than will a mainline driver. I don't know if its true or not, but I recall hearing that there are about the same number of signals between Richmond and Upminster as between King's Cross and Edinburgh. If their train is on time, the driver of an express on the ECML may not see a single red signal that doesn't clear before they reach it. |
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Apr 16, 2018 11:17:38 GMT
Reading this thread, and particularly a couple of the most recent posts, I’m left wondering about the attitude to SPADs on the Underground. I’ve heard figures quoted that there were approximately double the number of SPADs on the Underground as on the national network, for what is obviously a much smaller network. I also understand that for a mainline driver, a SPAD is quite seriously career threatening. I get the impression of a very different attitude here. That leaves me with two questions: 1. Is my interpretation correct? 2. If so, why? To compare SPADs on the Underground and the National Network services I feel it would be useful to highlight the differences in Service and Signalling. The frequency of trains on the underground is far higher per mile of track than National rail and stations within the central zone of London are a lot nearer to each other. In order to achieve the higher frequency the Underground signalling system is designed to safely bring trains closer together, particularly near stations. This is done by decreasing the distance between signals and increasing the number of them on the Underground versus National rail. My interpretation of this means that the chance for a SPAD is greater on the underground than National rail, as there are more signals and less time that an Underground driver has to correctly interpret to avoid a SPAD. |
|
|
|
Post by PiccNT on Apr 16, 2018 11:34:48 GMT
MOD COMMENT:
1. We don't do politics on this forum.
2. This is an emotive topic, but we need to be respectful of each other's opinion and post in an appropriate manner.
As you were . . .
Anyway, my personal opinion:
If there is a rule of action only being taken after a certain number of SPAD's, then regardless of opinions that rule needs to be applied consistently. Otherwise, there is no point in having rules or policies.
A driver having three SPAD's in eleven weeks rings alarm bells. As aslefshrugged mentioned, humans do make mistakes and there are safeguards to mitigate the frequency and consequences of them. However, this case does highlight issues with this particular driver, and in the public eye, the union will look bad in "defending" them, because that's how they will see it. The rule is, as I understand it, a certain number of safety critical errors that may include SPaD's. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 16, 2018 12:51:01 GMT
The dispute, as I understand it, was not over whether the driver should have been disciplined, but whether the management followed due process in doing so. The rules are there to protect both sides - failure to follow them can lead to problems such as claims for unfair dismissal.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 16, 2018 13:29:34 GMT
It's about Union representation, then? Management shouldn't make approaches to a driver without Union representation.
Sounds fair enough.
If it's against the agreed process, then Management ought to accept this, and start the process again.
|
|
|
|
Post by PiccNT on Apr 16, 2018 14:42:45 GMT
The dispute, as I understand it, was not over whether the driver should have been disciplined, but whether the management followed due process in doing so. The rules are there to protect both sides - failure to follow them can lead to problems such as claims for unfair dismissal. From what I understand, the driver was not disciplined. If however, he was allowed to continue driving after another action plan and he had another safety critical incident, that then would go to case conference as part of the conduct code. Again, from what I understand, the Acton Town management decided that based on his performance and I presume feedback from the Instructors, he was offered the chance to go back to stations, something that he may have agreed to. I have no idea if he was coerced into agreeing with this but at least he was offered another job. More than most other employers would do! Sometimes people are just not cut out to be drivers for whatever reason. This guy obviously had problems undertaking this role without incident. We have such people on our line and some are hanging on praying that they don't have any more incidents. Safety critical incidents are just that, safety critical and if you continue to have them, is it safe for you to be allowed to continue in this role? Management obviously took the view that he couldn't be allowed to continue given the risk involved. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,347
Member is Online
|
Post by Colin on Apr 16, 2018 14:59:32 GMT
I've just realised that a little important fact hasn't been mentioned thus far.....
The person who is now back on the stations has had their earnings protected for three years as part of the push back to their former role. They will also be permitted to reapply for the train operator role at a later date (normally this is after 12 months have lapsed).
So yes - and its important to note this is my own view - this dispute is more about the Union's noses being put out of joint than supporting someone who they feel got a raw deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 16, 2018 15:59:23 GMT
In fact, nobody seems to have GOT a raw deal!
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Apr 16, 2018 16:38:57 GMT
In fact, nobody seems to have GOT a raw deal! I think some commuters might disagree with you.  |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Apr 16, 2018 17:32:50 GMT
The Bus spotters had a good day to photograph the unusual Busses hired in by TfL to replace buesses sent into London to help out . My local route 252 had blue ones from Ensignbus  |
|
|
|
Post by davethewomble on Apr 17, 2018 10:51:40 GMT
I've just realised that a ...snip... So yes - and its important to note this is my own view - this dispute is more about the Union's noses being put out of joint than supporting someone who they feel got a raw deal. Or, is it that by not objecting when agreed procedures are not followed correctly, the Union could run the risk of establishing something that English Law might recognise as a custom and practice for dealing with similar matters, or indeed other disciplinary matters, thus eroding the agreement and their members' rights? Once such rights are lost, IMHO they are very difficult to restore. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 17, 2018 11:41:18 GMT
So, just for clarity:
A driver did three SPADs in eleven weeks, and was offered a job on Stations, rather than stay on T-Op and risk another SPAD, for which he may or may not 'normally' be sacked.
This is not agreed procedure, and so that driver's Union has raised the issue with Management.
Am I right so far? If so, what would the 'agreed procedure' have been?
(I have to ask, because I'm not party to Union/Management agreements in this industry).
|
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Apr 17, 2018 12:09:57 GMT
I've just realised that a ...snip... So yes - and its important to note this is my own view - this dispute is more about the Union's noses being put out of joint than supporting someone who they feel got a raw deal. Or, is it that by not objecting when agreed procedures are not followed correctly, the Union could run the risk of establishing something that English Law might recognise as a custom and practice for dealing with similar matters, or indeed other disciplinary matters, thus eroding the agreement and their members' rights? Once such rights are lost, IMHO they are very difficult to restore. Or could it be that the unique circumstances effecting the reason behind the SPADs has been handled in a way that it protects the drivers earnings, and allows him to reapply for the position to go on for a hopefully long career driving on the Underground? Is it under mining drivers rights, or an enhancement to the rights given certain "unique circumstances"? Bear in mind that the SPADs would stay on his current driving record irrespective of circumstances leading to them regarding these "unique circumstances", as the Underground has to follow guidelines on SPADs set out by the ORR (Office of Rail and Road) and any relevant laws of the Land. As such, if the driver was reinstated, and did have a 4th SPAD they could end up on a CDI if the company chose to query the answers on the questionnaire regarding the "unique circumstances" the driver would have signed as part of the training and recruitment process. To all, the reason I have not mentioned the "unique circumstances", is for the privacy of the driver involved, following company and forum guidelines (hopefully) and my own sense of respect for this drivers privacy. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 17, 2018 16:14:57 GMT
Reading between the lines, I'm concluding that this is the first red/green deficient driver to be appointed under the disability discrimination act.
Surely changes to the signalling ought to be made to accommodate this BEFORE such a person is placed in such a position.
It's hardly fair otherwise.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744 
|
Post by class411 on Apr 17, 2018 16:31:55 GMT
Reading between the lines, I'm concluding that this is the first red/green deficient driver to be appointed under the disability discrimination act. Surely changes to the signalling ought to be made to accommodate this BEFORE such a person is placed in such a position. It's hardly fair otherwise. Is it really the case that discrimination law says that you have to employ someone who cannot, by the nature of the job, do the work safely? Does this mean that an airline must employ alcoholic pilots, provided they don't actually catch them trying to fly drunk? What about surgeons with acute Parkinson's disease? Epileptic high wire artists? I can well understand that the law insists you do not discriminate against someone who may need adaptations or feasible special considerations, but colour light signalling is pretty much fundamental to safe railway operation - even with ATO there are still times when the driver needs to be able to obey a red signal. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,347
Member is Online
|
Post by Colin on Apr 17, 2018 17:12:28 GMT
Or, is it that by not objecting when agreed procedures are not followed correctly, the Union could run the risk of establishing something that English Law might recognise as a custom and practice for dealing with similar matters, or indeed other disciplinary matters, thus eroding the agreement and their members' rights? Once such rights are lost, IMHO they are very difficult to restore. There's many rumours doing the rounds - so many that they can't all be true. I don't have a copy of any procedures, policies or guidance documents to quote from and I'm no employment lawyer, but I do know discretion is built in and there's no automatic right of passage that allows anyone to achieve a 4th SPAD in a two year rolling period. It's certainly very possible to have 3 SPAD's and continue driving, but its definately not a garuanteed option (which some people seem to think it is). So, just for clarity: A driver did three SPADs in eleven weeks, and was offered a job on Stations, rather than stay on T-Op and risk another SPAD, for which he may or may not 'normally' be sacked. This is not agreed procedure, and so that driver's Union has raised the issue with Management. Am I right so far? If so, what would the 'agreed procedure' have been? (I have to ask, because I'm not party to Union/Management agreements in this industry). Again there's many rumours and frankly none of us know for sure at what point who said what. Unions don't have an automatic right to be present in the early stages following an incident - for all we know a manager may have made the suggestion before the driver even had their first post incident interview. If a well meaning manager was able to sort out a deal that assisted the employee, at whatever stage it was in the procedings, how is that a bad thing? Surely that's the sign of a good manager/employer?! This is why I said before that my own personal view, based upon the rumours I've heard coupled with knowing some of those involved at Acton, is that I think the union didn't like being side stepped. To all, the reason I have not mentioned the "unique circumstances", is for the privacy of the driver involved, following company and forum guidelines (hopefully) and my own sense of respect for this drivers privacy. Again rumours are rife about the build up to the SPAD's. It is absolutely right that the individual's personal circumstances are not discussed further here - in any case I'm not sure what's true and what isn't but if you did believe all the rumours its a wonder they managed to be born at all. Reading between the lines, I'm concluding that this is the first red/green deficient driver to be appointed under the disability discrimination act. I've not heard that one. I'd be inclined to suggest you are very much barking up the wrong tree there. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 17, 2018 17:32:08 GMT
Reading between the lines, I'm concluding that this is the first red/green deficient driver to be appointed under the disability discrimination act. Surely changes to the signalling ought to be made to accommodate this BEFORE such a person is placed in such a position. It's hardly fair otherwise. I’m assuming this is sarcasm? |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 17, 2018 17:56:24 GMT
Women voting used to be sarcasm.
I'm amazed that railway signalling has been allowed to fall so far behind in catering for this not-unusual disorder. No road traffic signal would ever be considered if it couldn't be understood clearly by a person with red/green deficiency.
Let's face it; far stupider things have received the attention of the radically-conscious!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 17:58:16 GMT
Unlike the operating side of LU ex Metronet employees are entitled to a union rep or work place colleague through the whole way of a discipline process. I wouldn’t know about ex Tubelines but that is one of the quirks that we have over the normal LU side.
Even though Metronet dissolved a good few years even staff starting tomorrow who are in a engineering type job where Metronet employed staff these conditions are still honoured
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 18:03:01 GMT
Reading between the lines, I'm concluding that this is the first red/green deficient driver to be appointed under the disability discrimination act. Surely changes to the signalling ought to be made to accommodate this BEFORE such a person is placed in such a position. It's hardly fair otherwise. Considering staff are given a medical at the start of there employment and throughout there employment at pre defined periods all age related and the colour blindness test is carried out if you work in an area where signals are important I be surprised the member of staff get to that point at all. Also a medical is usually done if progressing to a safety critical role and of course a manager can ask for a medical at any point as long as they have a valid reason |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Apr 17, 2018 18:03:31 GMT
Reading between the lines, I'm concluding that this is the first red/green deficient driver to be appointed under the disability discrimination act. Surely changes to the signalling ought to be made to accommodate this BEFORE such a person is placed in such a position. It's hardly fair otherwise. I’m assuming this is sarcasm? Poe's law at work here. There are so many barmy things going on you never know. True story: One of my sister's hotels has a garden that is only accessible via a very steep set of steps. She decided to have a ramp put in so that less able guests could enjoy the garden. The ramp is installed and much appreciated. Then the local council steps in and tells her that as it's a Grade 1 listed building she can't add the ramp. Who knew that listed building legislation trumped disability discrimination legislation? |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Apr 17, 2018 19:11:15 GMT
Women voting used to be sarcasm. I'm amazed that railway signalling has been allowed to fall so far behind in catering for this not-unusual disorder. No road traffic signal would ever be considered if it couldn't be understood clearly by a person with red/green deficiency. Let's face it; far stupider things have received the attention of the radically-conscious! Two words: Traffic Lights! Seriously, how does someone with no red/green differentiation deal with traffic lights at night? |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 17, 2018 19:27:25 GMT
MOD COMMENT:
Can we move on from this discussion about red / green colour blindness, traffic lights etc?
There is no evidence to suggest that this was a factor and as @aetearlscourt has pointed out, potential train ops are screened for this long before they are allowed anywhere near a train cab.
The circumstances surrounding this case are not in the public domain, and silly speculation isn't helpful and just clogs the thread up. As Colin pointed out, it's not appropriate to discuss it here anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Apr 17, 2018 21:04:43 GMT
I’m assuming this is sarcasm? Poe's law at work here. There are so many barmy things going on you never know. True story: One of my sister's hotels has a garden that is only accessible via a very steep set of steps. She decided to have a ramp put in so that less able guests could enjoy the garden. The ramp is installed and much appreciated. Then the local council steps in and tells her that as it's a Grade 1 listed building she can't add the ramp. Who knew that listed building legislation trumped disability discrimination legislation? Only the 'Jobsworth'  |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,771
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 17, 2018 21:57:03 GMT
Is it really the case that discrimination law says that you have to employ someone who cannot, by the nature of the job, do the work safely? No. The employer must make "reasonable" adjustments to allow people with disabilities to do the job, but if the modifications required would not be reasonable then the discrimination is not unlawful. What is "reasonable" depends on the circumstances, but redesigning the signalling system so a colour blind person can drive a train is not a reasonable adjustment. Similarly employers may place any restrictions they like on who they will consider employing for a role - as long as they can demonstrate that the restrictions are necessary or otherwise reasonable in the circumstances. It is obviously reasonable that someone driving a train on a line where red and green lights convey different safety-critical meanings be able to distinguish red and green lights. |
|
cso
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by cso on Apr 17, 2018 23:47:29 GMT
The DDA (Disability Discrinibation Act) generally says “where reasonably practical” and listed buildings do have special protections as to what you can and can’t do... but not sure that discussion is relevant to ASLEF so I’ll leave it there.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on May 4, 2018 14:11:45 GMT
This just came up on Finn Brennan's Facebook page So the next strike could be both depots on the western end of the District Line plus the Jubilee Line. Oh dear, time for Sadiq to have a quiet word in LU managements shell-like |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on May 4, 2018 14:30:40 GMT
I’m assuming this is sarcasm? Poe's law at work here. There are so many barmy things going on you never know. True story: One of my sister's hotels has a garden that is only accessible via a very steep set of steps. She decided to have a ramp put in so that less able guests could enjoy the garden. The ramp is installed and much appreciated. Then the local council steps in and tells her that as it's a Grade 1 listed building she can't add the ramp. Who knew that listed building legislation trumped disability discrimination legislation? I would have thought it was common knowledge that you can't make alternations to a Listed building without consent from the local council. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,347
Member is Online
|
Post by Colin on May 4, 2018 17:03:07 GMT
From what I can gather support on the west end of the District line is dropping faster than a lead weight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on May 5, 2018 8:51:11 GMT
Without getting too involved in something I know little of, one point I would emphasise is that none of us know exactly what has gone on. And the union are free to publish their version of events whilst LUL, owing to the confidentiality of their employee, cannot rebut with detailed facts.
|
|
