Should we have DOO?

[yorkie]

...If it is not going to save any money why are we going to lower safety standards...

but is it really safer to have staff walking along the track with clips & detanators (on lines with 3-minute headways and speeds of up to 100mph, what use is that...?) than have better communication methods to stop trains?

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

I must confess I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, or you actually think the flight crew once in the air & are on auto-pilot that they just all have a nice kip. In any case I'm pretty certain that's not the case, auto-pilot software has come on leaps and bounds in recent years but it still cannot cope with a lot of scenarios, and the conditions for the auto-pilot being unable to cope can take place in moments so at least one member of the flight crew will always be alert for those moments when they need to take control of the craft. And the same could be said for any automation software ever proposed for the rail network. There's nothing like have a few hands on deck (or at least a couple in the case of a train) for when the software can't cope, or falls over (and I work in IT doing a lot of coding so I know that things can go wrong without any reason sometimes).

The more you think it won't happen, the more often it does. Life, and the universe are kind of like that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And no sooner than I type that, than do I see this post:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=102852

You see there are far more factors at play than a software engineer could ever predict...

 

[68000]

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?

I have found that the best way to apply logic is to know some of the detail. It is not operational minutiae when discussing going to DOO to know that the red button on the radio is a vastly superior method to protect the line than someone getting down the track to apply TC clips.

Unless the train is derailed, applying TC clips in rear is a complete waste of everyone's time

The red button refers to


http://postimage.org/

 

[Tomnick]

Let's be clear, emergency protection (in the form of detonators) is a rarity nowadays, and the big red button is usually going to be far more effective. Who presses the big red button if (as could well be the case) the driver doesn't have chance to?

 

[Moonshot]

but is it really safer to have staff walking along the track with clips & detanators (on lines with 3-minute headways and speeds of up to 100mph, what use is that...?) than have better communication methods to stop trains?

This is a very valid point......

 

[68000]

The radio is live in every cab, the drivers control panel comes on when the key is in but it can also be turned on by a prolonged key press. The emergency button will work in any cab of the train as long as the drivers control panel is on.

It is a different story if the TE or any other staff member does not know this

 

[Tomnick]

Indeed, easy enough for anyone with access to a cab to initiate an emergency call - but if we'd be relying on the TE to do that in the (quite likely) scenario that the driver is incapacitated, then why is that member of staff optional? More importantly, how effectively would a TE be able to report the exact location of the train to enable the emergency services to get there without unnecessary delay?

 

[68000]

The signaller will know the track circuit / axle counter section the train is in

 

[Tomnick]

One of our boxes has a thirteen mile axle counter section. How helpful is that?! That's likely to be one of the bigger differences between DOO in urban areas (short sections, lots of access points and stations) and DOO through rural areas in Northern land (much longer sections, difficult access in some places, more difficulty in arranging assisting trains to a failure and so on).

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Based on...?

I and the vast majority of my colleagues do not support the expansion of DOO. How can you disagree with that?

O L Leigh

Even if it is as vast as you say a TOC only needs the required number of drivers willing to work for the additional pennies in order to operate the DOO service and history has shown they are easily found even from the ranks of 'staunch' ASLEF members.

 

[maniacmartin]

I believe on tube the dead mans handle is linked to the radio so if it isn't pressed, controller/signaller is automatically contacted after a time delay, and they can remotely talk into the PA system of the train to the passengers. Is there a reason why this cannot also be applied to National Rail?

Regarding costs, if the second on-board staff member (whatever job title they have) has a role more focused on revenue, then as well as any salary savings, there is also the extra revenue to consider - they will be able to get round more of the train and sell more tickets if they aren't always having to do the doors and go to the back cab.

 

[w0033944]

I take the point regarding applying logic when not being fully cognisant with details - I was trying to stick to areas where such knowledge wasn't required but got a bit carried-away with responding to every point raised by others which got me into areas where I was 'out of my depth'.

Having said that, my central point stands - in the event of an accident incapacitating or, in the worst case scenario, killing a driver, the least worst outcome is the emergency transmission is triggered by the lack of driver input on the DSD (has this been confirmed?). In the event of accident damage severing the link between the device and the radio emergency transmission system, the only information for signallers from the axle counters and (on lines with signalboxes, assuming that DOO routes would be those with traditional boxes) the fact that signallers would notice that the train had failed to pass their box.

From information provided by Tomnick, it seems as though the best-case scenario in DOO working would be that signalling staff would know the section in which the train was stopped and that the emergency transmission was activated. If track clips are not used, or there is no trained person available to operate them in the event of a derailed train fouling a live running line, I presume axle counters alone would not provide this information. I therefore assume that the emergency transmission would trigger a shutdown of all lines via. emergency broadcast to all on-board radios., otherwise the risk of a train on the fouled track running into wreckage would surely be unacceptable?

 

[68000]

I believe on tube the dead mans handle is linked to the radio so if it isn't pressed, controller/signaller is automatically contacted after a time delay, and they can remotely talk into the PA system of the train to the passengers. Is there a reason why this cannot also be applied to National Rail?

It is linked in every cab that has the new radio and will eventually be all cabs once some operators get their fingers out and install the new radio. The train may not have a PA system but will have to have one if operating DOO

 

[Tomnick]

I believe on tube the dead mans handle is linked to the radio so if it isn't pressed, controller/signaller is automatically contacted, and they can remotely talk into the PA system of the train to the passengers. Is there a reason why this cannot also be applied to National Rail.

It is, with GSM-R - see my posts above. It's no use if there's no-one who's able to respond though, nor is it going to get other trains stopped quickly.

Regarding costs, if the second on-board staff member (whatever job title they have) has a role more focused on revenue, then as well as any salary savings, there is also the extra revenue to consider - they will be able to get round more of the train if they aren't always having to do the doors and go to the back cab.

There's no reason for guards to go back to the back cab to do the doors though, in most cases. Yes, station duties are still a distraction from revenue protection, but rather less so if they can work from any part of the train - and is a station stop really the best time to be trying to deal with tickets?

 

[68000]

I therefore assume that the emergency transmission would trigger a shutdown of all lines via. emergency broadcast to all on-board radios

Correct

 

[w0033944]

Correct

However, from what Tomnick has just posted, it doesn't sound as though it would help much if signallers received an emergency transmission but were unable to get any response from the driver. I'm also confused as to whether routes which went DOO would require trains to be fitted with systems linking the DSD with the emergency transmission system, or whether activation would require someone to press the red button. Can anyone confirm if this is the case?

 

[Pure BR]

No we should not.

 

[Tomnick]

The quickest means for the driver (or anyone else on train) to stop the job is by initiating an emergency call through GSM-R - the red button - which will be heard by everyone in the 'cell' concerned, plus nominated adjacent ones. The yellow button places a priority call to the signalman, who can then take steps to stop trains if necessary. That's all different to the DSD alarm, which is also received in the box but dealt with differently (as before - try to contact driver, then use the PA to try to contact someone else on the train), and I beeline that it's a requirement of DOO.

 

[68000]

However, from what Tomnick has just posted, it doesn't sound as though it would help much if signallers received an emergency transmission but were unable to get any response from the driver. I'm also confused as to whether routes which went DOO would require trains to be fitted with systems linking the DSD with the emergency transmission system, or whether activation would require someone to press the red button. Can anyone confirm if this is the case?

In simple terms, they are 2 different types of call

The DSD is connected to GSM-R at all times and will activate if the pedal is released (after a timeout sequence). The signaller gets this alarm on his display with the headcode beside it. He will then try to determine if the driver is really incapacitated [being incapacitated is a very rare occurrence and I am not aware it has happened over the last 7 years on GSM-R or over the last 20 years on CSR]

The emergency call is available for anybody to press once the drivers control panel is on (either by the key being in or the soft key power up). Once the emergency call is made, an emergency stop command and alarm is sent to all GSM-R cab radios in a 12km area (typically). They can only move once the signaller is happy for them to do so.

 

[maniacmartin]

If the DSD was instead made to press the red button then this problem would go away. Having it go to some other system where human intervention is required to stop trains doesn't sound that useful to me

 

[w0033944]

Thanks both for your patience. It sounds as though the DSD-linked alarm is the least direct of the various emergency systems, and relies on the signalling staff to contact someone on board the train to ascertain what's going on (despite the fact that, in DOO working, the driver is the only trained point of contact). In other words, in the event of a collision with a foreign object which incapacitates or kills the driver and derails the train, oncoming trains on fouled lines won't receive any warning. In a similar situation, a Guard, assuming they are still able to do so, can use the red button to stop all trains in the area. Is my understanding correct?

If it is accurate, then I see a weakness in the system in cases of driver incapacitation with DOO working. Even if the train is not derailed and does not therefore foul any other tracks, without a Guard, the signalman is going to have to unsuccessfully attempt to speak to the driver before initiating an emergency procedure. It's therefore a slower system than the red button, and arguably slower even than the yellow button as at least someone on the train will be able to speak to the signaller having pressed it. I understand that the DSD-linked emergency transmission cannot stop all trains in the vicinity as the red button does, due to false alarms, but it still doesn't change the apparent fact that the worst case emergency is provided-for by the slowest, least-efficient means of emergency communication. Of course, by retaining Guards, we double our chances of someone being able to activate the red button, thereby protecting fouled tracks and passengers who may have escaped overturned or crumpled coaches and ended-up on live running lines.

 

[Tomnick]

If the DSD was instead made to press the red button then this problem would go away. Having it go to some other system where human intervention is required to stop trains doesn't sound that useful to me

See my other comments above, regarding 'false alarms'. A group emergency call is a very disruptive thing - something that you don't want to happen in error too often. Besides, if the driver really is incapacitated, the DSD alarm alone isn't going to get help to the right location.

 

[Bill Stanier]

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 .

Ah, OK. Same logic applies; why would the DfT want it if it wasn't cheaper and workable?

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

If it's not going to save money (and if it's been around 30 years there should be evidence of savings.. or no savings) why do DfT want it? That doesn't add up.

DfT need to make our expensive railway less costly. If DOO isn't going to help them do this, why do they want it? My guess is it IS cheaper and the 30 years experience has proved that. Why else would they want it?

 

[w0033944]

Ah, OK. Same logic applies; why would the DfT want it if it wasn't cheaper and workable?


If it's not going to save money (and if it's been around 30 years there should be evidence of savings.. or no savings) why do DfT want it? That doesn't add up.

DfT need to make our expensive railway less costly. If DOO isn't going to help them do this, why do they want it? My guess is it IS cheaper and the 30 years experience has proved that. Why else would they want it?

Political ideology - a Conservative administration is going to tend to prioritise cost-saving on a subsidised system over job losses or safety concerns.

 

[68000]

Thanks both for your patience. It sounds as though the DSD-linked alarm is the least direct of the various emergency systems, and relies on the signalling staff to contact someone on board the train to ascertain what's going on (despite the fact that, in DOO working, the driver is the only trained point of contact). In other words, in the event of a collision with a foreign object which incapacitates or kills the driver and derails the train, oncoming trains on fouled lines won't receive any warning. In a similar situation, a Guard, assuming they are still able to do so, can use the red button to stop all trains in the area. Is my understanding correct?

If it is accurate, then I see a weakness in the system in cases of driver incapacitation with DOO working. Even if the train is not derailed and does not therefore foul any other tracks, without a Guard, the signalman is going to have to unsuccessfully attempt to speak to the driver before initiating an emergency procedure. It's therefore a slower system than the red button, and arguably slower even than the yellow button as at least someone on the train will be able to speak to the signaller having pressed it. I understand that the DSD-linked emergency transmission cannot stop all trains in the vicinity as the red button does, due to false alarms, but it still doesn't change the apparent fact that the worst case emergency is provided-for by the slowest, least-efficient means of emergency communication. Of course, by retaining Guards, we double our chances of someone being able to activate the red button, thereby protecting fouled tracks and passengers who may have escaped overturned or crumpled coaches and ended-up on live running lines.

Until a while ago you were stating that a Guard jumping onto the tracks and placing TC clips onto the rails was the way to go. I am not aware of any occasion where the DSD has activated because the driver is incapacitated. A fraction of a fraction multiplied by a fraction gives you the chances.

I am neutral to DOO but I have an aversion to scaremongering
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Political ideology - a Conservative administration is going to tend to prioritise cost-saving on a subsidised system over job losses or safety concerns.

The other side has had multiple opportunities to reverser or stop the extension of DOO. Why haven't they?

 

[Bill Stanier]

Political ideology - a Conservative administration is going to tend to prioritise cost-saving on a subsidised system over job losses or safety concerns.

So DOO is cheaper, then?

The railways are not a job preservation exercise.

The railways have never been safer than they are today, so your point that the Conservatives would sacrifice safety for cost savings doesn't stand up. Sounds more like anti-Conservative bias on your part.

 

[yorkie]

...I am neutral to DOO but I have an aversion to scaremongering

Indeed. It doesn't do the industry any favours.

When it comes to safety, some branch lines are at real risk of becoming unviable due to the disproportionate safety and staffing requirements, and the alternative is a bus! A DOO train is far safer than road transport.

Many passengers already choose not to use a perfectly viable rail service and instead save money by taking a bus/coach, which is nowhere near as safe as DOO rail.

I'm against the idea of trains only having one member of staff on board, but the idea that it must be a Guard (who may be highly visible, or in some cases may be in the back cab all journey), and not a ticket inspector patrolling the train constantly (without having to pause to do doors) isn't an argument I can accept.

 

[Moonshot]

Indeed. It doesn't do the industry any favours.

When it comes to safety, some branch lines are at real risk of becoming unviable due to the disproportionate safety and staffing requirements, and the alternative is a bus! A DOO train is far safer than road transport.

Many passengers already choose not to use a perfectly viable rail service and instead save money by taking a bus/coach, which is nowhere near as safe as DOO rail.

I'm against the idea of trains only having one member of staff on board, but the idea that it must be a Guard (who may be highly visible, or in some cases may be in the back cab all journey), and not a ticket inspector patrolling the train constantly (without having to pause to do doors) isn't an argument I can accept.

Which is the very same point made at the Rail2020 inquiry - and as far as I can see there are areas where a commercial decision has been made by some TOCs to have at least one more on board.

 

[otomous]

Two members of staff on a train is always going to be more safe than one - in terms of unease felt by passengers about antisocial behaviour and fare dodgers, the despatch of the train, and in the event of an incident of any magnitude, somebody who can deal with passengers and perhaps stop them trying to exit the train while the driver deals with the line and the train itself can only be an improvement on what we have now. DOO was accepted in less risk-averse times; and I don't think that it would have been innovated in today's climate. I have spoken to a regular SWT passenger who didn't know DOO existed at all and thought that others might feel less safe travelling by train as a result. As for the suggestion that DOO equipment failure doesn't cause cancellations - of course it does - all that the public will hear is that there is a technical fault or a broken down train rather than the exact nature of the problem.

 

[68000]

Two members of staff on a train is always going to be more safe than one - in terms of unease felt by passengers about antisocial behaviour and fare dodgers, the despatch of the train, and in the event of an incident of any magnitude, somebody who can deal with passengers and perhaps stop them trying to exit the train while the driver deals with the line and the train itself can only be an improvement on what we have now. DOO was accepted in less risk-averse times; and I don't think that it would have been innovated in today's climate. I have spoken to a regular SWT passenger who didn't know DOO existed at all and thought that others might feel less safe travelling by train as a result. As for the suggestion that DOO equipment failure doesn't cause cancellations - of course it does - all that the public will hear is that there is a technical fault or a broken down train rather than the exact nature of the problem.

Would you prefer a service to cease because of high cost or continue as DOO?

Don't forget the safest train service is the service that does not exist