Should we have DOO?

[Moonshot]

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.



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 ---


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.


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.

This is a very valid point - and in fact was actually brought up at the Raill2020 enquiry not so long back by both the TOCs and the TSC.

 

[Tomnick]

Just to clarify, my 10% referred to the total cost of staffing the train - including the driver, management time etc.. Either way, as you suggest, the cost savings in terms of subsidy don't sound particularly earth-shattering under the current wording of the proposal. Returning to my point about making sure that the TOC does actually provide the level staffing specified - if the TOC can get away with running a few here and there (possibly by exploiting an 'exceptional circumstances' clause) without a second member of staff, without penalty, then the savings are theirs to keep!

I doubt we'll ever know exactly how many 'stop short' or 'wrong side' incidents occur on DOO trains, and how many of those would have been avoided if there had been a guard (thus requiring both to make a mistake in the former case at least).

 

[notadriver]

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.

That's nonsense - non intercity services frequently reach their maximum speeds of 90-100mph far faster than is legally allowed on the roads in this country.

 

[Carlisle]

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.

I tend to agree cos it's never going to make economic sense to any future TOC to staff or barrier the likes of Dent ,Ribblehead or many other lightly used Northern stations

 

[Bill Stanier]

This is what I hate about this forum. You know that it's impossible to provide stats about SoL incidents because these are not publicly available, and so you will never be satisfied with any answer that I give.

You're wrong; I have no idea whether it's possible to provide the stats. But I bet the TOCs have them, and on those stats they'll make their 'DOO or no DOO' decisions.

If the stats show that DOO works, and that it's cheaper, why wouldn't they implement it? If it doesn't work, or if there'd be no cost savings or maybe even cost increases in implementing it, why would they implement it?

Rhetoric and 'gut feeling' and "I had such and such incident...." doesn't cut it in effective decision making. Hard data does.

 

[68000]

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?

Analysis done logically? A warning will have been sent to the signaller about the 'incapacitated driver' scenario and will protect the line accordingly. If the driver sees something that needs to protect the line, the driver will use the Emergency Stop command to all other trains in the area

 

[w0033944]

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.

1. Of course there are differences - I used the term "closest equivalent" as I am well aware there are differences. I also referenced the immediate threat of a lone pilot collapsing at the controls as being very different to that of a driver (provision of the DSD and TPWS being the primary difference) - my point is that, even with a train at a stand, without any safety-critical staff on board other than an incapacitated driver, there are multiple safety problems with train protection, passengers evacuating onto live running lines, getting appropriate medical assistance to the driver etc. In effect, the passengers are left to their own devices in an environment which few, if any, know much about.

2. If we consider a situation similar to the Oxshott accident or the 'object thrown at drivers' cab' scenario, the speed of the train is largely irrelevant. Derailing due to a section of bridge masonry or a vehicle falling onto/in front of a train can derail said train so that it fouls other running lines, and can trap/injure/kill the driver. Indeed, accidents in the recent past where the driver has been killed or incapacitated have been worryingly numerous. In most recent cases, they have occurred with trains which are not proposed to switch to DOO, however I cannot think of any factor preventing a similar accident befalling a train running DOO in the future.

3. Cost vs. risk is a difficult one to judge. It is interesting to note that none of us bar perhaps the ultra-hardline free-market obsessive could support the notion of a railway operating without continuous automatic braking, some form of absolute block working, interlocking of points and signals, AWS/TPWS, approach locking etc. just to save the taxpayer and passengers a few pounds, yet most, if not all of those developments were resisted in the past, causing friction between chief Inspecting Officers of the Board of Trade and the railway companies. In addition, what is being proposed is not some vastly expensive new system with minimal demonstrable potential for safety improvement; it is nothing more or less than the removal of a safety-critical employee whose presence was unquestioned for decades as an important safety measure. Retaining fully-trained Guards isn't a novel or outré proposal; until the time comes when technology can fully replace them (not just in terms of train dispatch but in all aspects of their safety role), it is nigh-on impossible to argue that they are an unnecessary frippery, or that safety will not be compromised in their absence.

4. Whether we as individuals are ultra risk-averse or careless daredevils is utterly irrelevant to the debate. Other than when we perform activities such as driving on the public highway, most of our actions endanger only our lives - we are answerable solely to ourselves. By contrast, when a passenger buys a train ticket (or indeed an airline ticket), a contract is entered-into in which the TOC or airline has a duty of care towards that passenger. Even if someone bought a train ticket and requested that safety measures by bypassed for the sake of speed and convenience, the presence of others on the service who would presumably refuse to give their permission for such shortcuts means that the request would have to be refused (ignoring the fact that it couldn't be followed anyway for a multitude of other reasons). As such, your final point is, I'm sorry to say, utterly invalid.

 

[Tomnick]

Analysis done logically? A warning will have been sent to the signaller about the 'incapacitated driver' scenario and will protect the line accordingly.

No, the signalman will spend the next few minutes attempting first to initiate contact with the driver, then asking over the PA whether there are any members of staff who could assist. Only if that is successful might he contemplate stopping a train on an adjacent line.

 

[HH]

That's nonsense - non intercity services frequently reach their maximum speeds of 90-100mph far faster than is legally allowed on the roads in this country.

Legally yes, but many drivers on motorways are doing 80-90, and they're having to steer and contend with other drivers around them.

But that's bye the bye, I can't recall the last time a non intercity service had an accident at 90-100. Can you?

 

[Tomnick]

Potters Bar? That was a DOO service too, and - if I'm not mistaken - another member of staff who just happened to be on the train carried out some of the immediate actions in the absence of the driver.

 

[68000]

No, the signalman will spend the next few minutes attempting first to initiate contact with the driver, then asking over the PA whether there are any members of staff who could assist. Only if that is successful might he contemplate stopping a train on an adjacent line.

and how long do you imagine the passengers will be breaking open the doors and de-training themselves? before the signaller can protect the line?

 

[Tomnick]

and how long do you imagine the passengers will be breaking open the doors and de-training themselves? before the signaller can protect the line?

I'd imagine that the passengers would be on the move pretty quickly. Meanwhile, there's no-one to arrange emergency protection or make an emergency call to get the job stopped, and the few minutes that will elapse before the signalman realises something's amiss (after making efforts to respond to the DSD alarm) or the passengers dial 999 and the emergency services pass it onto Control who pass it on to the signalman - there's every chance that a train will approach at speed on an adjacent line, that could otherwise have been stopped safely.

 

[68000]

You really think that a signalman will wait 20 minutes before protecting the line when a DSD alarm comes in from a passenger service operating under DOO?

 

[HH]

1. Of course there are differences - I used the term "closest equivalent" as I am well aware there are differences.

Sorry, your post is too wordy for me, so I cut out all the irrelevant stuff. I'd say a coach is the closest equivalent. Certainly a lot closer than an aircraft.

2. Indeed, accidents in the recent past where the driver has been killed or incapacitated have been worryingly numerous.

They have? How numerous and how recent?

3. In addition, what is being proposed is not some vastly expensive new system with minimal demonstrable potential for safety improvement; it is nothing more or less than the removal of a safety-critical employee whose presence was unquestioned for decades as an important safety measure.

Which decades? A while ago everyone thought the earth was flat. This is not a very good argument from a scientist. What sort of scientist are you?

4. Whether we as individuals are ultra risk-averse or careless daredevils is utterly irrelevant to the debate.

Well obviously you think so. I think it is just showing that people are hypocritical. They apply one rule to others and a different one to themselves. The question isn't whether you should ensure that risk is brought to zero, no matter what the cost, but exactly where the line should be drawn. It's far safer to travel on a train than any other mode of transport. And that includes 100mph DOO.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd imagine that the passengers would be on the move pretty quickly.

Actually passengers are pretty patient most of the time. It seems to take a couple of hours before they start getting bolshy.

 

[w0033944]

Analysis done logically? A warning will have been sent to the signaller about the 'incapacitated driver' scenario and will protect the line accordingly.

By whom? In the case of a dead/injured.incapacitated driver and the only other rail employee being (no offence, but I'm exaggerating for the benefit of the hard-of-thinking) a glorified clippy, who is going to radio the signaller, providing accurate details such as the location of the train relative to numbered signals?

If the driver sees something that needs to protect the line, the driver will use the Emergency Stop command to all other trains in the area

Of course, there's never been an accident where an obstruction has killed or incapacitated the driver has there?:roll: At Ufton Nervet in 2004, the driver was killed in an impact with a small car at 100mph which could easily happen to a DOO service. According to the RAIB final report, two Train Managers (i.e. Guards with a fancy job title) protected the other (Down) line with clips, provided passengers with light sticks, contacted control, aided in ordely, safe passenger evacuation, liaised with FGW managers and the emergency services, and rendered first-aid, only the latter of which could be reasonably expected of a glorified trolley-dolly (of either gender) or a passenger. Other than that, they were a pointless waste of a few thousand pounds per annum.:roll:::mad:

Of course, if the driver is unharmed and in good health, you can get away without a safety-critical Guard - heck, you could probably run the network for a few days without TPWS/AWS or absolute block working without causing carnage, but you'd be daft to suggest it.

 

[Tomnick]

You really think that a signalman will wait 20 minutes before protecting the line when a DSD alarm comes in from a passenger service operating under DOO?

Who said twenty minutes? I said a "few minutes", which is how long it'd take to attempt to communicate with first the driver and then any other member of staff who might be on the train. There's certainly no requirement to stop the job immediately (or indeed at all).

 

[HH]

Potters Bar? That was a DOO service too, and - if I'm not mistaken - another member of staff who just happened to be on the train carried out some of the immediate actions in the absence of the driver.

Sorry, you are right. That was a WAGN train. I don't think the driver was killed, but I don't recall if he was incapacitated.

 

[68000]

By whom? In the case of a dead/injured.incapacitated driver and the only other rail employee being (no offence, but I'm exaggerating for the benefit of the hard-of-thinking) a glorified clippy, who is going to radio the signaller, providing accurate details such as the location of the train relative to numbered signals?

Automatically by the radio as it is interfaced to the DSD

Of course, there's never been an accident where an obstruction has killed or incapacitated the driver has there?:roll:

See above

 

[HH]

At Ufton Nervet in 2004

That was an InterCity service.

 

[Tomnick]

Actually passengers are pretty patient most of the time. It seems to take a couple of hours before they start getting bolshy.

Sorry, I was referring to a situation where the train had been involved in some sort of impact, possibly derailed, which is what I think 68000 is referring to. I agree that they'll be patient for rather longer if the train simply stops out of course (though less so if there's no one to look after them properly, provide regular updates, answer their questions - which they won't on DOO, if the driver is primarily attending to his own numerous duties, or had collapsed).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

By whom? In the case of a dead/injured.incapacitated driver and the only other rail employee being (no offence, but I'm exaggerating for the benefit of the hard-of-thinking) a glorified clippy, who is going to radio the signaller, providing accurate details such as the location of the train relative to numbered signals?

As already explained, an indication will be sent by GSM-R if the driver lets go of the DSD. I understand that it's a regular occurrence on some forms of traction, such as when the driver on a 156 leaves the reverser in forward during a station stop (nothing wrong with that) and gets up for a walk around the cab. In most cases, the driver's able to intervene before it actually sends the alarm, but it shows the potential for false alarms.

 

[92002]

Sorry to spoil the rhetoric folks.

DOO trains have been operating without any problems
In Scotland for more than 30 years.

The trains have a ticket examiner on board for
Passenger safety.

There have been none of the hypothetical problems
envisaged.

 

[Tomnick]

Sorry, you are right. That was a WAGN train. I don't think the driver was killed, but I don't recall if he was incapacitated.

I don't think he was killed, but I can well imagine that he'd be 'unavailable' in the immediate aftermath!

 

[HSTEd]

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: .

In most cases the plane now flies itself - indeed removal of the pilot from the loop of the one remaining place where they have to do significant work (takeoff and landing) is well underway with the deployment of Cat III Precision Landing systems that will eventually allow a completely hands off approach.
This is an important criteria for improving the performance of highly stressed airports (like Heathrow) in suboptimal conditions.

How do you think we are able to get a significant incidence of the entire flight crew being asleep at the asme time? The plane just flies itself with the pilot snoozing in the chair.

And despite what is often claimed about how important pilots are to preventing deaths in accidents, 90% of the time if the autopilot unexpectedly hands back control because it can't cope with the situation - everybody dies.
Events such as that plane landing in the Potomac are unfortunately rather uncommon, more likely is the plane diving nose first into the drink at several hundred knots.

 

[Tomnick]

Do you have a source for this 90% please? Personally, I'd rather be confident that the chap at the pointy end has the knowledge and ability to make substantial efforts to save the day if it all goes horribly wrong, but then I live in the real world.

 

[w0033944]

Sorry, your post is too wordy for me, so I cut out all the irrelevant stuff. I'd say a coach is the closest equivalent. Certainly a lot closer than an aircraft.

Well, it is, except for the fact that road users are able to steer around wreckage, or that emergency services can easily access the crashed or stranded vehicle. Oh, and there's no signaller to contact, live tracks to protect, MOM to liaise with and often a mere fraction of the number of passengers involved. Other than that, it's exactly the same.:roll: By the way, I'm of the opinion that coaches should have a second member of staff on board, but that's incidental.

They have? How numerous and how recent?

I'm sure you're quite capable of finding out for yourself. Try Ufton Nervet and Great Heck as examples.

Which decades? A while ago everyone thought the earth was flat. This is not a very good argument from a scientist. What sort of scientist are you?

1. From the earliest days of the railways until around 20-25years ago.

2. Not every human idea or principle is incorrect just because it wasn't developed in the last few years. Good ideas tend to last due to fitness for the environment in which they were developed - Darwinian principles don't just apply to organisms - as Richard Dawkins argued in The Selfish Gene, cultural ideas are subject to the same process - indeed, in describing this, he coined the word "meme". Scientific enough for you?

3. I'm not currently a scientist - I said I graduated in a science subject - biology, in fact, plus I did a research masters in an academic research laboratory. However, as I argued, no scientific training is required to apply reasoning and logic, but it isn't an innate skill - you have to learn how to do it, which is one of the innumerable benefits even average students like me can gain from studying a science at tertiary level.

Well obviously you think so. I think it is just showing that people are hypocritical. They apply one rule to others and a different one to themselves. The question isn't whether you should ensure that risk is brought to zero, no matter what the cost, but exactly where the line should be drawn. It's far safer to travel on a train than any other mode of transport. And that includes 100mph DOO.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So I (quite a risk-averse person) should be expected to place myself in unnecessary danger on a train just so some of my fellow passengers who might be inveterate risk-takers can avoid being hypocritical? See what I mean about logic and reason not being innate?

Actually passengers are pretty patient most of the time. It seems to take a couple of hours before they start getting bolshy.

From the RAIB report into the Ufton Nervet accident in 2004, referring to "Train Manager A":

On arriving at his office situated at the trailing end of coach A, he collected a set of track circuit operating clips and a hand lamp, donned a high visibility jacket and climbed out of the train through a broken window on the cess side of the track. The coach was leaning at an angle of about 45 degrees towards the cess, consequent upon which he was not able to exit through the door, which was being held shut by ballast. He walked along the cess to the back of the rear power car, where he placed the track circuit operating clips across the rails in the Down Line. At this time, he observed that passengers were evacuating coach A via a broken window, also on the cess side of the track.

(Emphasis mine)


Meanwhile...

Train Manager B had also joined the train at Paddington and was
standing towards the centre of coach G (Appendix G, Fig. 2), facing the rear of the train, at the time of the derailment. He was in the process of working his way forward checking tickets and having completed coach F, he was making his way through coach G towards coach H at the front of the train. He was thrown backwards and sustained bruising. On regaining his feet, he activated the light sticks, leaving them in their housings. He asked the passengers to remain in their seats until the emergency services arrived. There was no evidence of panic.

(Emphasis again mine)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Automatically by the radio as it is interfaced to the DSD

If the cab is flattened, I doubt any system connected to the DSD is likely to be operating anyway. Even if it can be assumed to be working, it only replaces one part of the Guards' job, and, if it's so wonderful, why do trains still carry track clips?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry to spoil the rhetoric folks.

DOO trains have been operating without any problems
In Scotland for more than 30 years.

The trains have a ticket examiner on board for
Passenger safety.

There have been none of the hypothetical problems
envisaged.

There are people who never use a seatbelt in a car, and not all have been killed or seriously injured, therefore seatbelts are unnecessary.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do you think we are able to get a significant incidence of the entire flight crew being asleep at the asme time? The plane just flies itself with the pilot snoozing in the chair.

For your sake, I'd like to think you have evidence for that assertion - you could be skating on very thin ice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you have a source for this 90% please? Personally, I'd rather be confident that the chap at the pointy end has the knowledge and ability to make substantial efforts to save the day if it all goes horribly wrong, but then I live in the real world.

Don't you realise that the plane flies itself - the flight crew are there to prevent the passengers from becoming concerned. All they do is sleep, read the paper and chat about pretty air hostesses. What is his source? Well, let's put it this way, with such forthright opinions, his source is unlikely to be injured by splinters in the near future.

 

[Latecomer]

Very good point and very true, I only managed to convince one driver into not crossing our picket line. Sadly even the local reps in Aslef crossed that same picket line, one of them even working a rest day!

People are different in what they say and what they do, one of those Aslef reps even posted guidance to drivers about crossing a Rmt picket line to the effect that they would not face disciplinary action. Sadly in these circumstances people will think more about what they want today rather then the consequences of tomorrow.

As an aside so as to give a fairer view many conductors that worked during that dispute, were not in a union, yet many of them benefited from what the union gained some have even gone driving themselves.

Firstly I am very sorry that you lost your job, but I do think it important to put some perspective in place about what drivers could do and what they couldn't. In a later post you acknowledge a condition which was invoked that negation could not take place on enhanced pay for DOO. Place in context the fact that half of LOROL was already DOO. Everyone knew (including guards) that there is no way that loss of guards would be averted when DOO services were already operating (some drivers working both DOO and with guards).

ASLEF could not be in dispute because of the clause you mentioned previously. I think most people knew that the best that could be gained would be the best terms for redeployment or redundancy regardless as to what the RMT said at the time. Some guards are completing their driver training now and will feel they did well out of it. That is not to say its not been awful for you and for others, although I don't know what redundancy terms were negotiated. As for drivers crossing the picket lines of a different union when their own union was not (and could not be) in dispute, then that's a tricky one. It would take a lot if courage regardless of what ASLEF reps said.

Before having a go at drivers who could not be in dispute and who would not have prevented things going DOO anyway, how many guards were there on the picket lines? My understanding is that there weren't that many most of the time. It seems that a lot lacked your own admirable sense of fight. I don't want this to be interpreted as me thinking DOO is great - that's not the point I'm making. I just think some of what you posted was selective and there wasn't an overwhelming turn out from all guards whose jobs were being affected so its not entirely fair to have a pop at drivers turning up for work and who might have feared sanction quite aside from having pay docked (without strike pay).

 

[w0033944]

That was an InterCity service.

Quoting myself from earlier:

At Ufton Nervet in 2004, the driver was killed in an impact with a small car at 100mph which could easily happen to a DOO service

 

[muz379]

You're wrong; I have no idea whether it's possible to provide the stats. But I bet the TOCs have them, and on those stats they'll make their 'DOO or no DOO' decisions.

If the stats show that DOO works, and that it's cheaper, why wouldn't they implement it? If it doesn't work, or if there'd be no cost savings or maybe even cost increases in implementing it, why would they implement it?

Rhetoric and 'gut feeling' and "I had such and such incident...." doesn't cut it in effective decision making. Hard data does.

Heres the thing though , The TOC's themselves are not getting a say in if DOO is implemented or not . The DFT is placing it in the spec for the franchise so whoever bids for that franchise has to provide plans for a move to DOO regardless of if they want to or not . Its the DFT that is forcing the expansion of DOO not the Toc's .

DOO may have been in use for 30 years but as of yet nobody has manage to provide a rebuttal to the argument that DOO is not going to save any money . If it is not going to save any money why are we going to lower safety standards whilst spending the same amount ? Seeems like a massive step backwards to me

 

[68000]

If the cab is flattened, I doubt any system connected to the DSD is likely to be operating anyway. Even if it can be assumed to be working, it only replaces one part of the Guards' job, and, if it's so wonderful, why do trains still carry track clips?

What if the guard is incapacitated as well as the driver? what if train detection is axle counter?

I think you are imagining DOO being operational on existing guard operated services without taking into account the requirements that need to be met before going DOO.

TC clips are useless in axle counter areas, if the driver is really incapable of pressing the red button, the guard can do that rather than risk the potential of slips, trips and falls on the ballast and it is much much faster!

 

[w0033944]

What if the guard is incapacitated as well as the driver? what if train detection is axle counter?

I think you are imagining DOO being operational on existing guard operated services without taking into account the requirements that need to be met before going DOO.

TC clips are useless in axle counter areas, if the driver is really incapable of pressing the red button, the guard can do that rather than risk the potential of slips, trips and falls on the ballast and it is much much faster!

I'm sorry, you've lost me - I freely admit to a lack of detailed understanding which is why I'm focusing my arguments on matters of logic and reason rather than operational minutiae. What is the "red button" and where is the guard coming from to push it if we are going DOO?

How does the current train protection procedure operate where axle counters rather than track circuits are used? Does the guard protect in rear of a failed train with detonators?