10 Car v 9 Car IET Staffing

[Bedwyn1862]

Does anybody know the difference in staffing between a 9 car and a 10 car IET on GWR? Does a 10 car need two train managers or... Also, does a 10 car need two buffet trolleys, or do they switch the trolley at stations?

 

[Phil R]

One TM I believe. Catering crew will often split and do both the 1st and standard trolley in their 5. Does vary though, those closer to the ops side should be able to clarify the rules.

 

[GW43125]

With the exception of the Oxford services which can run driver only, you always need one train manager (usually on the rear unit), and for the front set a "lead host" (formerly front set lead), who is catering crew with extra competency (not sure what). When a train is booked as a 10car there are usually two sets of catering crew. If no LH/TM is available to staff the front set, one will be locked out of use (I had a few like this in the early days of the 800s)

 

[172007]

With the exception of the Oxford services which can run driver only, you always need one train manager (usually on the rear unit), and for the front set a "lead host" (formerly front set lead), who is catering crew with extra competency (not sure what). When a train is booked as a 10car there are usually two sets of catering crew. If no LH/TM is available to staff the front set, one will be locked out of use (I had a few like this in the early days of the 800s)

Didn't know Padildington to Oxdord was DCO. Does that mean in the fullness of time Worcester / Herefords could operate like Chiltern do and also be DCO for their Oxford to Paddington legs.

 

[irish_rail]

Didn't know Padildington to Oxdord was DCO. Does that mean in the fullness of time Worcester / Herefords could operate like Chiltern do and also be DCO for their Oxford to Paddington legs.

Can they run DCO? I thought the camera quality wasn't good enough for DOO, which I thought was one of the reasons why the Bedwyns need a Train manager despite Turbos running down there DOO. Could be wrong though as I don't sign Oxford.

 

[Saj8]

No, it's not DCO, which implies at least one other member of staff is working on board, its proper DOO between Paddington and Oxford. The driver is the only member of staff on board. No, the cameras are not to be used for DOO dispatch because the images are not good enough. Instead a DOO train can only be dispatched from a station that has platform staff to dispatch. There is no way Oxford to Hereford can be DOO until all the absolute block signalling has been upgraded, and even then, it would be a challenge to extend the area of DOO operation with the unions.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Can they run DCO? I thought the camera quality wasn't good enough for DOO, which I thought was one of the reasons why the Bedwyns need a Train manager despite Turbos running down there DOO. Could be wrong though as I don't sign Oxford.

Paddington to Oxford and Banbury is and does run DOO. There is no use of the onboard cameras - just CD/RA dispatch at stations.

If the service calls at a station like Radley a Train Manager is provided. Cotswold services run with Train Managers throughout.

 

[AdamWW]

Paddington to Oxford and Banbury is and does run DOO. There is no use of the onboard cameras - just CD/RA dispatch at stations.

Interesting.

Were the cameras designed for purposes other than DOO?

Or do they not do the job they were intended for?

 

[172007]

No, it's not DCO, which implies at least one other member of staff is working on board, its proper DOO between Paddington and Oxford. The driver is the only member of staff on board. No, the cameras are not to be used for DOO dispatch because the images are not good enough. Instead a DOO train can only be dispatched from a station that has platform staff to dispatch. There is no way Oxford to Hereford can be DOO until all the absolute block signalling has been upgraded, and even then, it would be a challenge to extend the area of DOO operation with the unions.

You missunderstand me slightly. What I was suggesting is that Hereford / Worcestershire run DOO Paddingron to Oxford then With TM to Worcester and onward. Just like Chilton is DOO upto Banbury then Conductor the rest of the way.

 

[Carlisle]

Interesting.

Were the cameras designed for purposes other than DOO?

As far as I’m aware they were designed for DOO.

 

[Saj8]

You missunderstand me slightly. What I was suggesting is that Hereford / Worcestershire run DOO Paddingron to Oxford then With TM to Worcester and onward. Just like Chilton is DOO upto Banbury then Conductor the rest of the way.

Oh, I see. Yes sorry, I did misunderstand.

Yes there's no technical reason why this cannot happen, its exactly what used to happen with turbos along the route.

However, when the IETs were introduced, an agreement was established that where a part of a journey requires a guard, it would be guarded throughout the whole journey.

The cameras were designed for DOO dispatch. The problem with them is that because the doors are sliding pocket doors which are not flush with the body, and because the cameras are mounted to the body, the driver cannot actually see the doors via the cameras. They can only see a vertical "line" where the doorway is. Therefore the driver would not be able to see something trapped in the door that is protruding less than say 2 inches or so.

 

[Watershed]

No, it's not DCO, which implies at least one other member of staff is working on board, its proper DOO between Paddington and Oxford. The driver is the only member of staff on board. No, the cameras are not to be used for DOO dispatch because the images are not good enough. Instead a DOO train can only be dispatched from a station that has platform staff to dispatch. There is no way Oxford to Hereford can be DOO until all the absolute block signalling has been upgraded, and even then, it would be a challenge to extend the area of DOO operation with the unions.

Absolute block signalling is by no means a barrier to DOO. There are plenty of examples of trains which ran DOO under AB and indeed a handful still do.

But as you say, the agreement eventually reached with unions was that 80x services would only operate DOO if the service terminated within the area where DOO was used on Turbos.

Thus a London to Oxford (or even Banbury) service can run DOO but a service to Worcester has to have a Train Manager throughout, even for the London to Oxford section.

From the unions' perspective, it's understandable why they wanted to achieve this outcome: GWR could otherwise have reduced the number of Train Managers diagrams by only having them on 80x's whilst they're west of Didcot/Oxford/Bedwyn. But it's clearly a rather arbitrary policy with little basis in safety or rationality!

Interesting.

Were the cameras designed for purposes other than DOO?

Or do they not do the job they were intended for?

Funnily enough exactly the same cameras are good enough for Lumo, who operate DOO all the way between Edinburgh and London...

You missunderstand me slightly. What I was suggesting is that Hereford / Worcestershire run DOO Paddingron to Oxford then With TM to Worcester and onward. Just like Chilton is DOO upto Banbury then Conductor the rest of the way.

As above, that's not permitted under the agreement GWR have with the unions. Chiltern has "grandfathered" rights to run part-DOO services as they began this practice back in BR days, when Turbo services were extended to Birmingham.

 

[Saj8]

Funnily enough exactly the same cameras are good enough for Lumo, who operate DOO all the way between Edinburgh and London...

I have no idea if this is the case or not, but do all the stations that Lumo call at not have staff dispatching the trains, therefore rendering the DOO monitors unused for dispatch anyway?

 

[stadler]

I have no idea if this is the case or not, but do all the stations that Lumo call at not have staff dispatching the trains, therefore rendering the DOO monitors unused for dispatch anyway?

All of the Lumo trains call at Morpeth which does not have any despatch staff so the drivers have to use the onboard DOO cameras here.

 

[LowLevel]

Absolute block signalling is by no means a barrier to DOO. There are plenty of examples of trains which run DOO under DOO and indeed a handful still do.

But as you say, the agreement eventually reached with unions was that 80x seevices would only operate DOO if the service terminated within the area where DOO was used on Turbos.

Thus a London to Oxford (or even Banbury) service can run DOO but a service to Worcester has to have a Train Manager throughout, even for the London to Oxford section.

From the unions' perspective, it's understandable why they wanted to achieve this outcome: GWR could otherwise have reduced the number of Train Managers diagrams by only having them on 80xs whilst they're west of Didcot/Oxford/Bedwyn. But it's clearly an abitrary policy with little basis in safety or rationality!


Funnily enough exactly the same cameras are good enough for Lumo, who operate DOO all the way between Edinburgh and London...


As above, that's not permitted under the agreement GWR have with the unions. Chiltern has "grandfathered" rights to run part-DOO services as they began this practice back in BR days, when Turbo services were extended to Birmingham.

Why would you want to run a genuine Intercity service without a Train Manager, whether or not they operate the doors? A fully Driver Only Operated IC service is just rubbish.

 

[Watershed]

Why would you want to run a genuine Intercity service without a Train Manager, whether or not they operate the doors? A fully Driver Only Operated IC service is just rubbish.

Without wishing to derail this into another DOO slinging match of a thread, the Lumo model seems a very sensible one to me; a driver who is responsible for all operational matters, and then onboard customer service staff who are multi-functional and always rostered but not mandatory for the operation of the service. It's not really about the method of operation or dispatch, but rather about rostered staff and their roles and training.

 

[JN114]

IETs can only run DOO from stations with staffed dispatch - ordinarily Paddington, Slough, Maidenhead, Reading, Didcot, Oxford and Banbury - and only when the whole scheduled journey is/was entirely within the DOO area (Paddington to Banbury/Bedwyn).

Part DOO is authorised for trains meeting the criteria above - for example a Paddington to Bedwyn CAN operate DOO Paddington to Reading, then only run with a guard for the “necessary” section between Reading and Bedwyn.

If any part of the journey was at any point scheduled to operate outside the DOO area, a guard must be provided throughout - for example you CANNOT start a Worcester to Paddington service at Oxford because you have no guard, unless there will be a guard at Oxford to work the train.

387s is a bit of an undefined grey area - the guard has no duties to undertake between Didcot and Paddington as there is no dispatch method agreement for non-DOO dispatch at stations East of Didcot (inclusive). They are typically rostered a guard throughout.

Turbos it is formally agreed that they should work part DOO - guard provided where DOO not authorised, DOO operated where it is.

 

[GW43125]

IETs can only run DOO from stations with staffed dispatch - ordinarily Paddington, Slough, Maidenhead, Reading, Didcot, Oxford and Banbury - and only when the whole scheduled journey is/was entirely within the DOO area (Paddington to Banbury/Bedwyn).

Part DOO is authorised for trains meeting the criteria above - for example a Paddington to Bedwyn CAN operate DOO Paddington to Reading, then only run with a guard for the “necessary” section between Reading and Bedwyn.

If any part of the journey was at any point scheduled to operate outside the DOO area, a guard must be provided throughout - for example you CANNOT start a Worcester to Paddington service at Oxford because you have no guard, unless there will be a guard at Oxford to work the train.

387s is a bit of an undefined grey area - the guard has no duties to undertake between Didcot and Paddington as there is no dispatch method agreement for non-DOO dispatch at stations East of Didcot (inclusive). They are typically rostered a guard throughout.

Turbos it is formally agreed that they should work part DOO - guard provided where DOO not authorised, DOO operated where it is.

Thanks for the insight-never realised they weren't allowed to have the guard get off at Oxford!

Where is it that turbos run guarded-Basing, north Downs, Marlow & beyond Oxford? Is Windsor DO?

 

[stadler]

Thanks for the insight-never realised they weren't allowed to have the guard get off at Oxford!

Where is it that turbos run guarded-Basing, north Downs, Marlow & beyond Oxford? Is Windsor DO?

These three routes all require Guards onboard 165/166 trains:

• Reading to Redhill
• Reading to Basingstoke
• Marlow to Bourne End

I think these are the only 165/166 routes left that still require a Guard onboard.

Gatwick Airport to Redhill has a Guard onboard most 165/166 trains but it can run DOO. The early morning and late evening services are booked to be DOO.

Maidenhead to Bourne End runs DOO. It is an odd one where only the Marlow to Bourne End section requires a Guard onboard.

Banbury is DOO. Windsor is DOO. Henley is DOO. Bedwyn is DOO. Greenford is DOO. So most of the 165/166 in the Thames Valley are run without a Guard onboard.

Services between Oxford and Worcester also require Guards onboard 165/166 but i am not sure whether they operate this route any more. They used to. But it has been ages since i have seen one on this route.

 

[FGW_DID]

Maidenhead to Bourne End runs DOO. It is an odd one where only the Marlow to Bourne End section requires a Guard onboard.

Is this something to do with the Guard having to operate a ground frame or token equipment?

 

[JN114]

Is this something to do with the Guard having to operate a ground frame or token equipment?

From a train dispatch perspective they’re guard-operated Bourne End <> Marlow, DOO Bourne End <> Maidenhead.

However, If a train (either passenger or ECS) has a need to operate to/from Marlow platform at Bourne End, even if it is running Maidenhead to Bourne End only, it must have a guard to operate ground frame and points indicator at Bourne End.

Because the guard operates the points at Bourne End, whilst the train is at Bourne End, it essentially filters down to the following:-

You can only run without a guard if there is already a train locked in on the Bourne End to Marlow section.

 

[Horizon22]

Thanks for the insight-never realised they weren't allowed to have the guard get off at Oxford!

Where is it that turbos run guarded-Basing, north Downs, Marlow & beyond Oxford? Is Windsor DO?

Yes North Downs, Basingstoke and Marlow. Windsor, Henley and Greenford branches are all DOO.

If any part of the journey was at any point scheduled to operate outside the DOO area, a guard must be provided throughout - for example you CANNOT start a Worcester to Paddington service at Oxford because you have no guard, unless there will be a guard at Oxford to work the train.

387s is a bit of an undefined grey area - the guard has no duties to undertake between Didcot and Paddington as there is no dispatch method agreement for non-DOO dispatch at stations East of Didcot (inclusive). They are typically rostered a guard throughout.

Turbos it is formally agreed that they should work part DOO - guard provided where DOO not authorised, DOO operated where it is.

Is there not some quirks with driver T&Cs as well about running trains DOO?

Also 387s west of Didcot Parkway require a TM?

 

[JN114]

Is there not some quirks with driver T&Cs as well about running trains DOO?

Also 387s west of Didcot Parkway require a TM?

It has to be a “GWR” driver (in terms and conditions sense), rather than old HSS/West T&Cs.

West of Didcot is outside DOO “area” so yes guard required.

 

[Carlisle]

Yes North Downs, Basingstoke and Marlow. Windsor, Henley and Greenford branches are all DOO.

Basingstoke & North Downs aren’t DOO,
I understand proposals existed for Basingstoke around 1992 when the other routes were converted,( Greenford was a few years later) but never came to fruition. North Downs was never part of those plans .

 

[Horizon22]

Basingstoke & North Downs aren’t DOO,
I understand proposals existed for Basingstoke around 1992 when the other routes were converted,( Greenford was a few years later) but never came to fruition. North Downs was never part of those plans .

Yes I'm fully aware and there's a full stop there; it makes sense when you see I was replying to the other user.

 

[Carlisle]

Yes I'm fully aware and there's a full stop there; it makes sense when you see I was replying to the other user.

Ok thanks for clarifying.

 

[Towers]

…

Because the guard operates the points at Bourne End, whilst the train is at Bourne End, it essentially filters down to the following:-

You can only run without a guard if there is already a train locked in on the Bourne End to Marlow section.

The DOO Maidenhead - Bourne End shuttle which operates during peak hours, when the line is split into a two train service, arrives on the ‘other’ platform at Bourne End which only allows a return back to Maidenhead and provides no access to Marlow. There is only one set of points involved for this, which is the set outside of the station that takes trains into either platform from the single line, and is signaller controlled. No guard is required for that section of the line, and in theory trains should be able to operate there, DOO, regardless of anything being ‘locked in’ to the Marlow section. It’s highly unlikely of course that you’d have one train operating without the other, but it ought to be theoretically possible!

 

[Starmill]

All of the Lumo trains call at Morpeth which does not have any despatch staff so the drivers have to use the onboard DOO cameras here.

Oh really, I thought LNER had dispatch by Northern at Morpeth and Alnmouth?

 

[RollingStock19]

I have no idea if this is the case or not, but do all the stations that Lumo call at not have staff dispatching the trains, therefore rendering the DOO monitors unused for dispatch anyway?

All stations Lumo call at are manned, even Morpeth has someone during the day... but given they are DCO they still self-dispatch.

 

[Starmill]

I have no idea if this is the case or not, but do all the stations that Lumo call at not have staff dispatching the trains, therefore rendering the DOO monitors unused for dispatch anyway?

I don't think Lumo have use of platform staff anywhere do they? In any case it's much easier for Lumo to keep the camera lenses clean than would be GWR.