Should we have DOO?

[notadriver]

People with those sort of opinions are usually the first out the door in any modernising industry.

Go ahead and try.

 

[Olaf]

Go ahead and try.

It would not be me, it would be your HR department based on your profile.

 

[O L Leigh]

How exactly is that relevant if the passenger is tracked through their journey with a smart card? There is no need for staff to inspect the ticket.

Because, of course, the Oyster card has been such a roaring success and has eliminated fare evasion completely to the extent that checks and manned barriers have been rendered entirely redundant.

Staff costs make up a significant proporting of total cost of any business. A 50% reduction in on-board staff will allow signicant reduction in the cost to teh passenger.

So very naïve. Railway finances are not so simplistic.

The technology for driverless trains are here already.

No it isn't. Not by a very very long way, as you would know if you hadn't just dismissed the earlier discussion on the topic.

O L Leigh

 

[Olaf]

You wouldn't dream of a ship or commercial aircraft operating with only one member of staff on board and yet supporters of DOO would encourage a train capable of carrying up to 1000 passengers at the highest speeds any land vehicle is permitted to operate to only have one member of staff!

Regarding lower paid staff - if a lower paid grade were introduced what should their working hours and salary be ? How would the same high standards maintained by guards now be kept up ? And how would the potential animosity between the new grade working longer hours for lower pay and highly paid drivers working less hours be kept under control?

The process would start with commuter lines, not HS lines. The shipping industry is already working on taking crews off of ships and the technology is proven for airliners.

 

[notadriver]

This discussion is about DOO. Please try to stay on topic.

 

[313103]

Olaf suggests we should have a race to the bottom, perhaps he has a happy well paid job and suggests that no one should be able to live above the poverty line.

He also thinks that you will get the same character of person if you pay minimum wage to someone who is paid a lot more. I will tell you pay me minimum wage you will get minimum service.

 

[Olaf]

Because, of course, the Oyster card has been such a roaring success and has eliminated fare evasion completely to the extent that checks and manned barriers have been rendered entirely redundant.

Exactly; no need for onboard checks anymore.

So very naïve. Railway finances are not so simplistic.

Rail operation is a business just like any other, and staff costs are a significant outgoing, so I guess I know more about it than yourself.

No it isn't. Not by a very very long way, as you would know if you hadn't just dismissed the earlier discussion on the topic.

Wrong again. The technology exist now.


O L Leigh[/QUOTE]
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Olaf suggests we should have a race to the bottom, perhaps he has a happy well paid job and suggests that no one should be able to live above the poverty line.

He also thinks that you will get the same character of person if you pay minimum wage to someone who is paid a lot more. I will tell you pay me minimum wage you will get minimum service.

You pay the rate that matches the job.

 

[O L Leigh]

Snipped

Enjoy your fantasy. We're talking about a real railway and, unfortunately, you've just shown up your total lack of understanding about how it works and how it's funded.

I'll just reset the Troll Alarm now.

O L Leigh

 

[313103]

You pay the rate that matches the job.

And pray who decides what you get paid? So what would you pay for say a Driver working on a DOO train and a Driver working with a Guard? What would you pay a ticket collector? what would you pay a dispatcher?

Gladly it wont be you with any luck, as you would want people to volunteer rather then get paid.

 

[notadriver]

Olaf suggests we should have a race to the bottom, perhaps he has a happy well paid job and suggests that no one should be able to live above the poverty line.



He also thinks that you will get the same character of person if you pay minimum wage to someone who is paid a lot more. I will tell you pay me minimum wage you will get minimum service.

Maybe they are a university student perhaps caught without a ticket at some point and now has an axe to grind against all rail staff.

 

[PermitToTravel]

A secure train-to-signaller radio system is a requirement of DOO. If there is a "lack of communication", DOO is (rightly) prohibited.

The underground didn't get a reliable communications system until quite some time after they went DOO!

 

[ainsworth74]

This is an interesting topic but can we please a) keep it civil and b) remember that this is an increadibly emotive topic, some of our members could be or have indeed been affected by moves to DOO therefore please think carefully about what you're posting and how it could be interpreted by others.

 

[313103]

This is an interesting topic but can we please a) keep it civil and b) remember that this is an increadibly emotive topic, some of our members could be or have indeed been affected by moves to DOO therefore please think carefully about what you're posting and how it could be interpreted by others.

Thank You Ainsworth, I fall under B) when it comes to DOO especially the part that says 'Have Been affected'.

 

[ExRes]

And pray who decides what you get paid? So what would you pay for say a Driver working on a DOO train and a Driver working with a Guard? What would you pay a ticket collector? what would you pay a dispatcher?

Gladly it wont be you with any luck, as you would want people to volunteer rather then get paid.

As you were on the railway at the time you'll know how DOO pay was decided, it was a daily allowance agreed between BR and ASLEF and paid on qualifying turns of duty, divisive or not it would be easily calculated if anyone had the brass neck to attempt a reintroduction

 

[313103]

As you were on the railway at the time you'll know how DOO pay was decided, it was a daily allowance agreed between BR and ASLEF and paid on qualifying turns of duty, divisive or not it would be easily calculated if anyone had the brass neck to attempt a reintroduction

Thanks ExRes I did understand how it worked, I was wanting Olaf (who for some reason has hidden himself) to have his say on the matter as he is the one suggesting people should be paid based on the job they do, I want him state what people should be paid.

I know that on LOROL that an agreement was made with Silverlink (National Express ownership) and ASLEF in 1997 that DOO could be introduced without the need for extra pay. Sadly that was my downfall in 2013 when London Overground (MTR / DB owned) invoked that 1997 agreement and the only response Bob Crow (rest his Soul) got from Aslef was 'we cant do anything as the company are bringing in an agreement we made with the then Silverlink in 1997.

 

[muz379]

If you reduce the on-train staff by 50% that feeds through as a significant cost reduction to the operator.

In practice that cost saving just will not happen as you are imagining it will because traincrew numbers will not be cut in half you will still need to have TE's which will need to be paid something unless you want to loose revenue

And because ASLEF will not agree to drivers taking on extra responsibility for free .

 

[notadriver]

In practice that cost saving just will not happen as you are imagining it will because traincrew numbers will not be cut in half you will still need to have TE's which will need to be paid something unless you want to loose revenue



And because ASLEF will not agree to drivers taking on extra responsibility for free .

Excellent post. And managing the platform train interface (PTI) of trains is a huge responsibility. It's not just 'doing the doors' ....

 

[Bantamzen]

Exactly; no need for onboard checks anymore.

And just exactly how much would it cost to cover every single entrance / exit, at every single station in the country with s/c tech? Additionally, how to you mointor people attempting to jump any barriers, any CCTV solution for example would add further cost & would still require manning. Of course some person at the far end of a CCTV network isn't going to be able to do much other than alert the local authorities by which time the fare-dodger may be well on their way.

Rail operation is a business just like any other, and staff costs are a significant outgoing, so I guess I know more about it than yourself.

Is it? How many businesses are key, nay essential to this country's economy? Without the rail network, the roads would be further jammed up, more people would be stuck in them getting to work, and more money would be lost.

Wrong again. The technology exist now.

Again, exactly how much would it cost to implement across the country?

I mentioned earlier in the thread about how the guard on a train I was on that was involved in a fatal collision took responsibility for the situation when the driver was unable to. So let's take this to the extreme, and imagine a similar situation somewhere remote, say Blea Moor, where a DOO is involved & the driver incapacitated. How would you manage such a scenario, especially if the on-board passengers were struggling to get a mobile signal to alert the authorities? Basically there would be nobody to control the passengers, and stop them potentially trying to de-train & putting themselves at risk on a line that other services may be using & are unaware of a developing problem ahead of them.

Like I said, it's an extreme scenario, but perfectly possible in many part of the UK. Just because we can do something, doesn't always mean we should. The safety of the passengers & crew must always come first over profits, end of. The moment you compromise that is the moment you increase the risks of something going terribly wrong. And if something goes terribly wrong on the rail network, it’s not just the bottom line that gets hurt, people can die. The race to pad out corporate profit and the expense both of people on the ground & their safety is totally unacceptable. I fully support our men & women in the rail industry trying hard to stop such risky changes, as well as trying to protect their livelihoods. Perhaps better savings could be made by trimming out some of the middle management herd that UK corporations seem so keen on these days. After all, are we really going to miss a load of corporate management-babble, endless power-point presentations & meaningless PR? Hmmmm......

<scratches chin>

 

[ExRes]

Thanks ExRes I did understand how it worked, I was wanting Olaf (who for some reason has hidden himself) to have his say on the matter as he is the one suggesting people should be paid based on the job they do, I want him state what people should be paid.

I know that on LOROL that an agreement was made with Silverlink (National Express ownership) and ASLEF in 1997 that DOO could be introduced without the need for extra pay. Sadly that was my downfall in 2013 when London Overground (MTR / DB owned) invoked that 1997 agreement and the only response Bob Crow (rest his Soul) got from Aslef was 'we cant do anything as the company are bringing in an agreement we made with the then Silverlink in 1997.

Cripes !!, when DRI came in it replaced our DOO payment of £9 something a day, was that Silverlink agreement put in place after DRI was agreed ? I can't imagine even the bosses at ASLEF agreeing to do something for nothing, although they wouldn't have been the ones doing DOO of course ....

 

[Carlisle]

As you were on the railway at the time you'll know how DOO pay was decided, it was a daily allowance agreed between BR and ASLEF and paid on qualifying turns of duty, divisive or not it would be easily calculated if anyone had the brass neck to attempt a reintroduction

Interesting ,I remember knowing a member of staff at Oxford telling me at the time that line went DOO (about 1991 I think) the drivers allowance was £8 a day

 

[NSEFAN]

Staff costs make up a significant proporting of total cost of any business. A 50% reduction in on-board staff will allow signicant reduction in the cost to teh passenger.

The railway is largely loss making and is subsidised by government. The government currently expects the railways to be making efforts to reduce costs. If staffing costs go down, fares will not be reduced as the train company will be expected to reduce its subsidy first.

 

[Tomnick]

Since, predictably, one or two members seem determined to push for the race to the bottom, seeking to pursue automation and destaffing to its fullest extent, and in one case proposing to force staff onto a lower rate of pay whilst still retaining their safety-critical status and responsibilities for the state of the line, I thought I'd share this link. In summary, the author (who would appear to have far more business experience and success than even 'Olaf') makes a very strong case against the race to the bottom - yes, there might be short term savings, but ultimately it'll be a bad thing for all of us. The principle of what he says would appear to be applicable here, even if the finer detail isn't.

 

[HH]

How often are trains cancelled because no Guard is available? When it does happen, how often is it because the TOC is deliberately keeping vacancies open, relying on overtime to keep the job running, to cut costs and increase their own profits?

DOO dispatch might be quicker (the time saving equating to no more than the time taken by the Guard to return to and close his local door), but how much time will be lost by passengers all queuing to use a single door, putting cycles on the wrong part of the train, needing assistance - the sort of thing that Guards deal with efficiently to minimise dwell time?

No guard available depends on a lot of things and therefore varies from TOC to TOC, but last time I looked on services that have guards 1% wouldn't be far out. TOCs lose money on cancelled trains therefore in my experience do not deliberately leave vacancies open on staff required to run them. They have cocked up from time to time though. The most common causes are staff sickness and delays in getting to the depot, whether from earlier trains or other transport. Note that Rostering Errors are not categorised as traincrew cancellations.

The performance guys I've spoken to are adamant that DOO improves performance. Not a huge deal, but a couple of minutes saved on average can make a big difference, not just on PPM, but also on right time arrival.

 

[muz379]

Since, predictably, one or two members seem determined to push for the race to the bottom, seeking to pursue automation and destaffing to its fullest extent, and in one case proposing to force staff onto a lower rate of pay whilst still retaining their safety-critical status and responsibilities for the state of the line, I thought I'd share this link. In summary, the author (who would appear to have far more business experience and success than even 'Olaf') makes a very strong case against the race to the bottom - yes, there might be short term savings, but ultimately it'll be a bad thing for all of us. The principle of what he says would appear to be applicable here, even if the finer detail isn't.

The thing with the race to the bottom if we really wanted to so many jobs out there could be automated or done for a lot less but that leaves society where exactly ? .

 

[w0033944]

I'm not involved in the rail industry; I'm not as knowledgeable in terms of its ins and out as many on here, but, as an ex-science graduate, the one thing I'm used to doing is sitting back and analysing a situation logically. I claim no particular intelligence, by the way - average is probably a fair assessment - most people have the ability to apply reason and logic, but little experience, training or practice in doing so.

Given the numbers of people conveyed, speeds involved and the consequences of an accident, to me the rail industry has its closest equivalent in the airline business, though, speed aside, the ferry/cruise liner industry has a similar potential for loss of life. Sticking with airlines, though, let me pose a question I mentioned elsewhere - would you be happy to step on board a plane, even on a relatively short-haul flight, with only one pilot and the aircrew untrained in emergency procedures?

Now, there is, admittedly, greater protection on modern trains for the 'incapacitated driver' scenario (the DSD), so the consequences of a collapsed driver are less immediately severe than those of a lone pilot slumped at the controls, but, as has already been stated, the safety risk of a train coming to a halt miles from a station, possibly with no road access and with no safety-trained member of staff on hand is that passengers may well de-train onto a live railway. In the case of a lump of concrete being dropped in front of a train (or indeed a repeat of the Oxshott scenario), not only could it kill or seriously injure the driver, it could easily derail the train, causing it to foul other running lines. Without another safety-critical member of staff on board, there would be no-one to warn signallers, no-one to place rail clips on the lines to set signals to red, no-one to co-ordinate the safe emptying of the train, or liaise with MOMs or other persons in charge of incidents. At best, you'd have a ticket-clipper, at worst, you'd be reliant on intelligent, capable passengers or other rail employees among the passengers.

In short, though the immediate risk (i.e. an out-of-control train) is removed, unlike the airborne equivalent, the principles of having trained staff to manage emergencies is the same. Perhaps then, we can modify the initial hypothetical question - assume that there is a co-pilot on our airliner but that they have no means of contacting air traffic control and that the cabin crew have no emergency training whatsoever; in the event of the place ditching in the sea there is no assistance or co-ordination as they are simply waiters/waitresses who are as clueless as to how to deal with the situation as you are. Do you board that plane without any concerns?

 

[Tomnick]

No guard available depends on a lot of things and therefore varies from TOC to TOC, but last time I looked on services that have guards 1% wouldn't be far out. TOCs lose money on cancelled trains therefore in my experience do not deliberately leave vacancies open on staff required to run them. They have cocked up from time to time though. The most common causes are staff sickness and delays in getting to the depot, whether from earlier trains or other transport. Note that Rostering Errors are not categorised as traincrew cancellations.

The performance guys I've spoken to are adamant that DOO improves performance. Not a huge deal, but a couple of minutes saved on average can make a big difference, not just on PPM, but also on right time arrival.

Fair points, sensibly made. I certainly can't dispute what you say, although 1% seems a little high if we're talking full or part cancellations rather than relatively minor delays awaiting traincrew. Whether the improved general performance outweighs the implications of an increase in operating incidents (and I don't doubt those who claim, from experience, that this is the case) and a few delays relating to faulty DOO equipment, I don't know.

Much has been made of the provision of a TE or other non-S/C bod, as though it'll be something provided on the vast majority of trains. That worries me - at present, the incentive to provide a guard is that the train can't run without one! In the probable absence of a penalty regime (as per Strathclyde) for trains running without a second member of staff, where's the incentive to make sure turns are covered by filling vacancies and/or offering overtime if necessary? I'd imagine that it'd quickly reach the same level of staffing on the London DOO operations - that being, of course, no additional staffing other than a few RPIs roving across the network (and purely for revenue protection, not customer service). I think that's bad enough on outer suburban services where, at a rough guess, the majority of passenger journeys are well under an hour, but unacceptable on regional trains where folk can be on board, left to their own devices, for three or four hours in some cases.

 

[HH]

Given the numbers of people conveyed, speeds involved and the consequences of an accident, to me the rail industry has its closest equivalent in the airline business, though, speed aside, the ferry/cruise liner industry has a similar potential for loss of life. Sticking with airlines, though, let me pose a question I mentioned elsewhere - would you be happy to step on board a plane, even on a relatively short-haul flight, with only one pilot and the aircrew untrained in emergency procedures?

Tch tch, and you a scientist. You're missing out a couple of very important points here:

1. An airplane is up in midair, often over ocean, and it can't just stop. Nor can the passengers evacuate midair. It doesn't call at stations, that have safety critical staff, en-route. It's so far different from trains that to use it as a comparator is laughable.

2. The fastest trains are InterCity and have a safety critical person in addition to the driver. The fastest non-intercity services (which are a fair bit slower) rarely, if ever, reach their top speeds as they stop fairly frequently.

Of course having additional staff means that in event of an emergency, especially where the driver is incapacitated, it would be advantageous to have a trained member of staff onboard. There are other things that would also make the railway safer. The problem with all of them is cost. When buy a car do you buy the very safest vehicle? Or do you, at best, factor that in with purchase price, running costs, extras, etc.?

Cost is a factor, and I wonder how many people in this thread apply safety in their own lives to the level they want in the railways? In my experience that will be zero.

 

[HSTEd]

Lets say a plane suffers a catastrophic power failure - at best you get Gimli Glider and at worst you never find out what happened because the plane just dissapears.
If a train suffers one it just rolls to a stop unless every single brake on every axle has a wrong side failure, and even in that case most of its journey time that woudl result in the train simply rolling to a stop before it hit anything.

And yes, I would be happy to get on a plane with only one pilot since if the pilot actually hs to do anything other than activate the brakes on landing then we are most likely dead already.

 

[Tomnick]

I don't think the aviation example is as irrelevant as HH suggests, at least in terms of cabin crew provision. After all, they can't do very much in terms of their safety responsibilities until the plane is on the ground (or water!), no matter how wrong things are going. Is that, and the subsequent evacuation, that much different from an emergency evacuation required from a train in the middle of nowhere? Why can't airline passengers be left to sort themselves out in that situation?

Yes, there is a cost associated with providing an extra member of staff - but, in this case, unless I'm still mistaken, we're only talking about the difference between providing a guard and providing a TE - even allowing for a lower standard of training, easier rostering, no spare cover and so on, I can't see that amounting to a saving of much more than 10% on the cost of staffing the train, and rather less on the TOC's overall staffing cost.

I'm not an aviation expert by any stretch of the imagination, but even I recognise HSTEd's (equally uninformed?) comments a deep insult to pilots - especially those whose skill has avoided a nasty accident, or at least minimised its impact, requiring them to do much more than just "activate the brakes on landing" :roll: .

 

[HH]

Fair points, sensibly made. I certainly can't dispute what you say, although 1% seems a little high if we're talking full or part cancellations rather than relatively minor delays awaiting traincrew. Whether the improved general performance outweighs the implications of an increase in operating incidents (and I don't doubt those who claim, from experience, that this is the case) and a few delays relating to faulty DOO equipment, I don't know.

I've never seen faulty DOO equipment given as a reason for a delay, although it is always possible. I saw some scaremongering in the thread earlier about door-opening. From my experience door-opening errors are very few and far between. Drivers stopping short happens more frequently than it should (still a very small % though), but usually they realise and then move to the correct position. Stopping short still occurs with a guard on board. So something that might happen in 0.01% of trains run can hardly be compared to the gain that happens on every run.

Much has been made of the provision of a TE or other non-S/C bod, as though it'll be something provided on the vast majority of trains. That worries me - at present, the incentive to provide a guard is that the train can't run without one! In the probable absence of a penalty regime (as per Strathclyde) for trains running without a second member of staff, where's the incentive to make sure turns are covered by filling vacancies and/or offering overtime if necessary? I'd imagine that it'd quickly reach the same level of staffing on the London DOO operations - that being, of course, no additional staffing other than a few RPIs roving across the network (and purely for revenue protection, not customer service). I think that's bad enough on outer suburban services where, at a rough guess, the majority of passenger journeys are well under an hour, but unacceptable on regional trains where folk can be on board, left to their own devices, for three or four hours in some cases.

I imagine the DfT will specify what they want. If they fail to specify then bidders are adept at reading between the lines. If they do specify then the TOC will have to maintain that level of staffing. Who knows what the DfT will specify? The words so far don't really add up - they want to lower the cost significantly, but then they talk about getting the conductor giving customer service rather than dispatching the train. That doesn't make for big savings.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think the aviation example is as irrelevant as HH suggests, at least in terms of cabin crew provision. After all, they can't do very much in terms of their safety responsibilities until the plane is on the ground (or water!), no matter how wrong things are going. Is that, and the subsequent evacuation, that much different from an emergency evacuation required from a train in the middle of nowhere? Why can't airline passengers be left to sort themselves out in that situation?

Fair point, but most air incidents don't end in that happy position of landing somewhere so that the plane can be evacuated nicely, which was the point that HSTEd was trying to make, albeit badly.

Yes, there is a cost associated with providing an extra member of staff - but, in this case, unless I'm still mistaken, we're only talking about the difference between providing a guard and providing a TE - even allowing for a lower standard of training, easier rostering, no spare cover and so on, I can't see that amounting to a saving of much more than 10% on the cost of staffing the train, and rather less on the TOC's overall staffing cost.

It's a fair bit more than 10%. It was suggested earlier in the thread that the difference is salary levels was more akin to 25-30%, and generally the T&Cs will be more costly too. I'd say that a 35-40% saving is possible. In addition, if they were only doing customer service and revenue protection you would expect to see a gain on the revenue side. Of course, if you take out the man altogether you save 100%, but you will take a hit on revenue. It's not guaranteed that, given a free hand, TOCs would remove the second man from all services. Indeed I think it is highly unlikely.