W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[craigybagel]

As long as nobody loses their job then I am not overly concerned about this. As technology develops if it is safe to close the doors using CCTV / door sensors etc. then why not do things this way?

Some have mentioned about a lack of customer-facing staff on the trains if there is only a driver on board. Well half the guards on the Cardiff - Portsmouth trains never venture from the rear cab anyway so the public are already used to it!

Nobody's losing their job YET. Making TMs optional is a big line to cross, and once crossed you have to wonder why a company would pay to keep staff on that apparently aren't necessary. At the moment, the fact that FGW HSTs can't run without a guard is their safety net. Take that away when IEP comes in and they've got nothing.

 

[ainsworth74]

Nobody's losing their job YET. Making TMs optional is a big line to cross, and once crossed you have to wonder why a company would pay to keep staff on that apparently aren't necessary. At the moment, the fact that FGW HSTs can't run without a guard is their safety net. Take that away when IEP comes in and they've got nothing.

Indeed. If it isn't in the franchise agreement that TMs have to, at the very least, be diagrammed to be part of SET services then I would be very worried that a future TOC will try and get rid of them slowly but surely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nobody's losing their job YET. Making TMs optional is a big line to cross, and once crossed you have to wonder why a company would pay to keep staff on that apparently aren't necessary. At the moment, the fact that FGW HSTs can't run without a guard is their safety net. Take that away when IEP comes in and they've got nothing.

True in many industries, though. In reality even if fGW could run high-speed services with only a driver they probably won't. And as it is now they could always sub in a Turbo if needs be...

 

[Jonfun]

I would imagine the situation where there are no crew members onboard other than the driver would be unlikely as (if we believe FGW) they're going to have more onboard staff. If the TM role is non safety critical then only a small amount of extra training would be needed to have a situation where the other crew can "step up" a grade if required. And probably get paid no extra for it, but still...

Considering the industry focus on Platform/Train Interface issues amongst other things, DOO is a step in the complete wrong direction and is only going to result in a less safe railway.

 

[muz379]

Assuming that we have a new grade of on board staff who resets call for aid alarms in toilets , resets pascomms , assists in protecting the train in an emergency situation , assists in evacuating the train in an emergency situation , reports defective on train equipment ,reports delays and other notable incidents to control, assists wheelchair passengers and other vulnerable passengers on and off the train , and also sells a few tickets . But doesn't operate the doors .
What kind of competencies are we still going to need this person to be trained in , and how much money off the current salary for a guard/conductor/train manager are we going to save ?
in addition if the person is trained in train protection , and on board evacuation surely they will have to be required to be present for the train to run .Or are we saying to passengers that its a lottery depending on how many people call in sick that day you might have to be less safe ?

Just as a point of order, being trained in assisting the safe evacuation of a train doesn't mean they're receiving safety critical training. WatcherZero never said the training would be equivalent.

What exactly do you mean by assist though ?

If they have a PTS and are to be expected to assist with or take control of an emergency situation that might lead to protection of the train being needed and then evacuation then I would argue that this would be safety critical .

I dont think it would be compliant with the health and safety at work act to train someone in assisting in an evacuation but not give them PTS training .Furthermore what use is someone going to be in an evacuation situation if they have not got any route knowledge and have never received PTS training so cant even look after themselves on and about the line

 

[455driver]

True in many industries, though. In reality even if fGW could run high-speed services with only a driver they probably won't. And as it is now they could always sub in a Turbo if needs be...

Deleted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Assuming that we have a new grade of on board staff who resets call for aid alarms in toilets , resets pascomms , assists in protecting the train in an emergency situation , assists in evacuating the train in an emergency situation , reports defective on train equipment ,reports delays and other notable incidents to control, assists wheelchair passengers and other vulnerable passengers on and off the train , and also sells a few tickets . But doesn't operate the doors .
What kind of competencies are we still going to need this person to be trained in , and how much money off the current salary for a guard/conductor/train manager are we going to save ?
in addition if the person is trained in train protection , and on board evacuation surely they will have to be required to be present for the train to run .Or are we saying to passengers that its a lottery depending on how many people call in sick that day you might have to be less safe ?


What exactly do you mean by assist though ?

If they have a PTS and are to be expected to assist with or take control of an emergency situation that might lead to protection of the train being needed and then evacuation then I would argue that this would be safety critical .

I dont think it would be compliant with the health and safety at work act to train someone in assisting in an evacuation but not give them PTS training .Furthermore what use is someone going to be in an evacuation situation if they have not got any route knowledge and have never received PTS training so cant even look after themselves on and about the line

Deleted.

 

[Carlisle]

There are some major problems to overcome with DOO for Crossrail on the Great Western. Crossrail trains will have in-cab CCTV which requires fixed CCTV on the stations but they only have 6 screen views which means you have to be able to see 10 cars - 20 sets of doors - from 6 views. No easy, and to do this the cameras need to be mounted close to the trains to get a longer view, that means they come in to the Drop Zone for the OHEL so have to be earthed to take 12KA traction current in the event of a fault and, of course, cannot be faulted, maintained or serviced without an isolation.
But that's not the end of the problem. Not all trains on the route have in cab DOO so for those that don't rely on platform displays, this now means that a driver of a Crossrail train may have different views within the cab from those on the platform monitors which may be confusing.

Blimey, that all sounds really problematic, wouldn't the easiest solution simply be to fit the Crossrail stock with bodyside cameras like the overgrounds 378s etc

 

[RPI]

Until recently all on board staff with FGW were trained in train evacuation but this is something that appears to have stopped lately. As for re setting passcomms, on DOO trains there isnt a passcomm as such, you pull a lever that lets you speak to the driver. On current DOO services RPI'S and TE'S report defects via an app on their Blackberry, and will also assist disabled passengers where appropriate. I actually think that the dispatch process being conducted entirely by the driver is a positive step, but on the same note i think that the train being able to operate without a train manager is a backward step, the system that Southeastern employ on the Javelin would be the best way forward. I'll be honest I always thought that it would be the local services to go DOO first and not intercity services.

 

[Jonfun]

in addition if the person is trained in train protection , and on board evacuation surely they will have to be required to be present for the train to run .Or are we saying to passengers that its a lottery depending on how many people call in sick that day you might have to be less safe ?


What exactly do you mean by assist though ?

If they have a PTS and are to be expected to assist with or take control of an emergency situation that might lead to protection of the train being needed and then evacuation then I would argue that this would be safety critical .

I dont think it would be compliant with the health and safety at work act to train someone in assisting in an evacuation but not give them PTS training .Furthermore what use is someone going to be in an evacuation situation if they have not got any route knowledge and have never received PTS training so cant even look after themselves on and about the line

Assist means exactly that. They don't lead the evacuation but are trained in how to do it so when the driver (in this hypothetical situation) authorises the train's evacuation then they are able to get on with it. Certainly at my TOC it's mandatory that all onboard staff are trained in assisting evacuation, how to stay safe on the line if you end up there in an emergency situation, what a track circuit operating clip is and how to use one, what to do if there's a fire onboard etc, without necessarily holding PTS. They're more use having them there than not having them there. It does not make them safety critical.

 

[RPI]

Also, you do not need to have PTS to go on or about the line in an emergency situation.

 

[47802]

I would imagine the situation where there are no crew members onboard other than the driver would be unlikely as (if we believe FGW) they're going to have more onboard staff. If the TM role is non safety critical then only a small amount of extra training would be needed to have a situation where the other crew can "step up" a grade if required. And probably get paid no extra for it, but still...

Considering the industry focus on Platform/Train Interface issues amongst other things, DOO is a step in the complete wrong direction and is only going to result in a less safe railway.

DOO trains operate successfully every day therefore if it can be extended further it should be done,

As for people losing their job well in the real world people lose their jobs everyday through advancing technology and increased efficiency but in this case FGW have said they don't intend to make anybody redundant anyway. I hope FGW stick to their plans even if it means strike disruption.

 

[ac6000cw]

Blimey, that all sounds really problematic, wouldn't the easiest solution simply be to fit the Crossrail stock with bodyside cameras like the overgrounds 378s etc

That was my thought too (as an engineer)....alternatively, why not insulate the cameras and supports instead, and make the posts hinged for maintenance (like a lot of platform lam posts are/were, for that very reason).

Think creatively - that's what design engineers are paid for....

 

[Jonfun]

What on earth are you on about 47802?

DOO trains operate successfully, therefore they should be extended.
By your logic, services with a Driver and a Guard also operate successfully, so they should be extended surely too?

 

[47802]

What on earth are you on about 47802?

DOO trains operate successfully, therefore they should be extended.
By your logic, services with a Driver and a Guard also operate successfully, so they should be extended surely too?

I thought my post was obvious if DOO can operate successfully and safely as it has done for many years on some routes, then there is no reason not to extend it further other than the obvious resistance by the unions.

The ultimate aim which may be a long way off should be a totally automated railway with driverless trains, along with driverless cars, buses and lorries.

 

[Jonfun]

But driver/guard working also operates more safely and more successfully than DOO? So why not extend that instead?

Perhaps give some indication to the passengers that their in many cases ridiculous fare increases are actually paying for something worthwhile rather than cutting corners on safety and having the profits line the wallets of the already wealthy shareholders and directors?

 

[47802]

But driver/guard working also operates more safely and more successfully than DOO? So why not extend that instead?

Perhaps give some indication to the passengers that their in many cases ridiculous fare increases are actually paying for something worthwhile rather than cutting corners on safety and having the profits line the wallets of the already wealthy shareholders and directors?

Its called efficiency, do you have figures to back up that statement? the only dangerous platform incident I have witnessed would not have happened if door control would have been driver controlled instead of the Train Manager, obviously that doesn't mean that there might not be some DOO incidents, but unless the Railway safety bodies decide that the practice is unsafe then to me there is no reason not to extend it whatever the unions might say.

 

[387star]

I thought my post was obvious if DOO can operate successfully and safely as it has done for many years on some routes, then there is no reason not to extend it further other than the obvious resistance by the unions.

The ultimate aim which may be a long way off should be a totally automated railway with driverless trains, along with driverless cars, buses and lorries.

Yeah let's make everyone unemployed

 

[RPI]

Yeah let's make everyone unemployed

But thats the thing, no one will be unemployed under this plan.

 

[47802]

But thats the thing, no one will be unemployed under this plan.

Indeed so and should be a separate argument really not that the unions will see it like that.

I think the key thing about DOO which many people try and make is that while DOO is safe having a Driver and Guard is seen as marginally safer. Now that may or may not be true, but to me unless you can demonstrate that DOO is unacceptably unsafe for a particular Train or Route or DOO generally, then there is no reason not to extend it.

 

[LLivery]

That's like saying we should get rid of staff at all stations and only have ticket machines because its not "unacceptably unsafe". Just like when at stations, people like a knowing there is a member of staff reachable when on a train and again, there are more and more calls, certainly in London, for more staff visible, not less. The perception is that with a member of staff available idiots will think twice before being fare dodgers, disruptive, vandalising and threatening.

I would like to see the number of incidents which I just mentioned on SWT vs Southeastern. I'm sure it will run in SWTs favour.

 

[craigybagel]

Its called efficiency, do you have figures to back up that statement? the only dangerous platform incident I have witnessed would not have happened if door control would have been driver controlled instead of the Train Manager, obviously that doesn't mean that there might not be some DOO incidents, but unless the Railway safety bodies decide that the practice is unsafe then to me there is no reason not to extend it whatever the unions might say.

Are you basing your entire analysis on why DOO should be extended based on one incident you've witnessed?

 

[Stompehh]

That was my thought too (as an engineer)....alternatively, why not insulate the cameras and supports instead, and make the posts hinged for maintenance (like a lot of platform lam posts are/were, for that very reason).

Think creatively - that's what design engineers are paid for....

Pretty certain the Class 345s WILL have bodyside cameras.

 

[The Ham]

But driver/guard working also operates more safely and more successfully than DOO? So why not extend that instead?

As I've pointed out before:

With regards to which is safer DOO or travelling on a train with a guard given the very low level of incidents it would be fairly hard to statistically say one way or another, unless you know of research which has looked into this.

Do you therefore have statistics which proves that diver/guard is safer than DOO?

To prove my above point about how the low level of incidents may not provide a clear answer:

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/105...vows_to_fight_driver_only_trains_plan/?ref=rc

Jonathan Fox, Acting Director of TfL London Rail, said: "We do not believe that the new system will have any impact on safety.

"On the East London Line, which uses driver only operation, the rate of door incidents is one for every 7 million passengers.

"This compares to the section of the network which currently uses conductors, where the rate of door incidents is one for every 4 million passengers."

As once you are into the realms of 1 incident per 4 million or one per 7 million it is the difference between 24 and 14 incidents for all the passengers which use Waterloo in a year (about 98 million).

 

[Captain Chaos]

I remember many years ago that the late night service on Saturday to Newbury and Bedwyn was reduced. Why? Repeated vandalism to the train. Never used to get any trouble much if they saw me on there though. Sure, you'd get one or two still. But the driver was always relieved to see me, even if I was only an RPO at the time. The passengers liked to see you too. Most would say it had been years since they saw anyone in the evenings down there. The timetable is still like it now. The gap still exists. We really can't allow this type of DOO to spread. Where after midday its a lottery to see anyone. We already have it on FGW locals and it doesn't work. Keep a staff presence on the trains! Wonder how long before they do it to the Basingstokes, Gatwicks and Marlows and then I'm out of a job...

 

[455driver]

As I've pointed out before:



Do you therefore have statistics which proves that diver/guard is safer than DOO?

To prove my above point about how the low level of incidents may not provide a clear answer:

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/105...vows_to_fight_driver_only_trains_plan/?ref=rc



As once you are into the realms of 1 incident per 4 million or one per 7 million it is the difference between 24 and 14 incidents for all the passengers which use Waterloo in a year (about 98 million).

Deleted.

 

[47802]

Are you basing your entire analysis on why DOO should be extended based on one incident you've witnessed?

No I'm not but I think my previous statements are pretty clear, as for other staff on the train then clearly there may need to be staff on the majority of trains ranging from catering staff, revenue staff, customer service staff and security staff on evening trains but I don't really see that as an argument against DOO,

The last TPX late Saturday evening P** Head special I travelled on out of Leeds seemed to have security staff on while the guard stayed in the cab.

 

[ac6000cw]

What's missing in that report is the word 'reported', some DOO incidents don't get reported simply because the driver doesn't realise they have made a mistake!

So do all instances where the guard has made a mistake (which must surely happen) get reported without fail ?

(There have been serious 'ding-ding and away' accidents in the past involving guards).

 

[The Ham]

What's missing in that report is the word 'reported', some DOO incidents don't get reported simply because the driver doesn't realise they have made a mistake!

Which is why I was asking for a study not just a press release. Even making some allowance for under reporting the figure could still be lower if you use a figure of up to 70% more incidents than are reported or could be higher if a figure of over 75% more incidents than are reported. However, with the likes of trains where guards do not always look out of a drop down window there may be a level of under reporting on those services too which may mean that the under reporting for DOO would have to be higher still.

The point being without having detailed evidence there is no way of saying which is safer and even then because of the very low levels it is still going to be broadly the same in terms of travelling public for whichever means is used.

Also, what counts as an incident, as there may be loads of people who come to no harm (other than a bruised ego) which may mean that the rate of any injury could be 1 per tens or even hundreds of million passengers whilst the rate of deaths is likely to be into the 1 per billions (given that annual rail passenger numbers has been over 1 billion per year and it's been several years since there has been a passenger death of any type on the rail network).

 

[craigybagel]

No I'm not but I think my previous statements are pretty clear, as for other staff on the train then clearly there may need to be staff on the majority of trains ranging from catering staff, revenue staff, customer service staff and security staff on evening trains but I don't really see that as an argument against DOO,

The last TPX late Saturday evening P** Head special I travelled on out of Leeds seemed to have security staff on while the guard stayed in the cab.

I'm still not sure what your reasoning is - you state several times that if DOO is no more unsafe than the alternatives then it should be extended (which whilst I don't agree with it is a valid opinion), but you don't say what the advantages are for DOO and why you think it should extended?

 

[pompeyfan]

Why do people wish to see guards removed from services? Would you be happy to see your local Tesco remove checkout staff? Would you like to see all level crossings converted to obstacle detection? Would you like to see all planes automated? If the answer is no to any of those questions then why is it acceptable to see guards basically demoted to trolly dollies?