W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[Bletchleyite]

DOO on rural/ex-industrial backwaters is a bit different than it is for large stations or inner city transit lines.

DOO would work badly on rural stopping services, as fare evasion would go through the roof. But driver-operated doors using on-train cameras or mirrors would mean the guard could concentrate on customer service and revenue, which would really improve things, IMO. This is exactly how the pay-on-board trams (Sheffield and Blackpool) work.

 

[The Ham]

"Unsafe" is relative. For me, full DOO or regular operation with a guard are both safe enough - both are vastly safer than travel by road, for instance.

True, no argument there.

But to me it is certainly *less* safe to dispatch from a position where you cannot see the train for a period of several seconds than a position where you can see it right up until the point it moves, and even safer to dispatch it from a position where you can watch it all the way out of the platform, and even more so if there's a passcom or brake handle to hand so if you did see something go wrong you could stop it straight away.

Were we in mainland Europe (other than Switzerland, which has a *very* questionable pseudo-DOO dispatch procedure on IC trains) we'd give two bells with the local door still open and watch the train out of the platform before closing it. A droplight achieves that without the risk of falling out so is better - but isn't available at passenger doors other than Mk3 hauled stock and 442s.

The problem is although there is much debate about the relative safety of each method no one has yet provided any evidence to prove it one way or the other. The reason for this is that the current methods of dispatch in the UK are all very safe with little between them, resulting in low levels of incidents making it difficult to prove statistically one way or the other.

Therefore any comments that one is safer than the other is all down to personal views and not supported by evidence (the best "evidence" so far is that they are broadly the same with door incidents happening between 1 in 4 million and 1 in 7 million, although even that doesn't define an incident meaning an injury could be even rarer).

Even if a driver and guard are safer, what makes them safer? As a lot of those on here saying it is because a guard can watch the train as it leaves the station then would appear to be arguing that those TOC's who don't have droplight's on their trains or if the do don't insist that their guards dispatch from the droplights (i.e. SWT) may as well go over to DOO as they are missing out on the key safety advantage of a guard.

Conversely, those on here saying that guards are better if the walk the train rather than sitting in the back cab are arguing that our trains are inherently safe as they run at present, meaning that as safe/less safe is perceptual as the feel more safe on a train where they can gain access to TOC staff if they need it.

Going to the extreme, if DOO is less safe than driver and guard then automatic trains (i.e. no driver) are less safe than DOO. Therefore following that argument to full extent of that logic, the DLR should be shut down at once. Yet, it too is very safe.

 

[Carlisle]

Bodyside cameras are not compatible with Platform Edge Doors, that will be used in the tunnel sections of Crossrail. Platform mounted cameras but broadcasting pictures into the cab (Track To Train), as already used on LU lines, is much safer and offers improved visibility of the Platform Train Interface.

Oh right thanks for clearing that one up

 

[Mojo]

Nice idea but it wont happen

This is how it works on Scotrail, where there are financial penalties in place for running without TEs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Going to the extreme, if DOO is less safe than driver and guard then automatic trains (i.e. no driver) are less safe than DOO. Therefore following that argument to full extent of that logic, the DLR should be shut down at once. Yet, it too is very safe.

And it is quite interesting in that it is essentially *guard* only operation

 

[The Ham]

And it is quite interesting in that it is essentially *guard* only operation

Which is why I said "no diver" not "no staff". However, I have not said that we should do away with guards, rather (as DLR's guards are) they should be in a customer facing role and not tempted to hide in the rear cab (or even in a middle cab on trains formed of multiple sets).

 

[plymothian]

The plan is not to run SETs without TMs except where they need to, the main argument is rather than cancel a train, get customers moving.

What has not been decided is how safety-critical the new role will be. A lot of the safety-critical work will be expunged from the new "guard" role, starting with door duties. An argument, for example, is a guard does not really need to know how to lay protection, because the signalling via GSMR Emergency Call will do that.

The new "guard" role is primarily customer care.

 

[HSTEd]

Which means there will never be a TM diagrammed - it will disappear almost immediately.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What is different between the method of working used on VT Pendolinos and that proposed for the FGW SETs?
I think all VT services have 3 staff: driver, conductor and catering. Aren't FGW saying the same thing?
There have been some high-profile evacuation situations on Pendolinos (after failures/wires down etc) but I don't hear of complaints about the train crewing or level of training.

Going back a bit, there used to be 2 drivers on services over 110mph.
Nobody complains today about there only being a single driver.
Technology and safety processes have moved on.

 

[yorkie]

DOO would work badly on rural stopping services, as fare evasion would go through the roof.

Like those DOO trains through rural places like Lochwinnoch or Caldercruix with dedicated ticket examiners?

On the contrary; DOO frees up the time of the on-board staff to check tickets. DOO doesn't necessarily mean no on-board staff, and FGW are not proposing removing on-board staff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which means there will never be a TM diagrammed - it will disappear almost immediately.

What basis do you have for that prediction? Has Southeastern done away with their on-board managers? Will they? No...

 

[Starmill]

IMHO, and I don't know what the cost:benefit of this might be, but it should be a franchise requirement that Customer Service and ticket checking staff are available on all trains. This could either be fulfilled by a traditional guard's role, or something more akin to a ScotRail ticket examiner, or a hybrid like a Southeaster On Board Manager. If there isn't anyone else onboard the train to carry out revenue duties, and unless every station has an open ticket office, or ticket machines attended by staff for customers to resolve any ticket machine issues with at all times while trains are running (I think only some stations in Merseyside currently meet this requirement), this person should also be capable of issuing tickets. These staff could carry out varying degrees of safety role too, but it does seem rather redundant to leave them needlessly in control of doors if there is no safety disadvantage to having the driver (and station staff) in control of doors.

 

[island]

Going back a bit, there used to be 2 drivers on services over 110mph.
Nobody complains today about there only being a single driver.
Technology and safety processes have moved on.

Well, 373s still have 2 drivers

One wonders how much of this is politically driven. It's well known that Reading commuters have very high political influence — and probably want their fares bringing down.

 

[Starmill]

What basis do you have for that prediction? Has Southeastern done away with their on-board managers? Will they? No...

I agree with the point, but can a Southeastern High Speed train run without the OBM? A ScotRail train can run without a ticket examiner, even though one should be diagrammed on every service.

 

[craigybagel]

I agree with the point, but can a Southeastern High Speed train run without the OBM? A ScotRail train can run without a ticket examiner, even though one should be diagrammed on every service.

What basis do you have for that prediction? Has Southeastern done away with their on-board managers? Will they? No...

Southeastern has an agreement that no train will run without an OBM. FGW is offering no such agreement, and that is the crucial difference.

What is different between the method of working used on VT Pendolinos and that proposed for the FGW SETs?
I think all VT services have 3 staff: driver, conductor and catering. Aren't FGW saying the same thing?
There have been some high-profile evacuation situations on Pendolinos (after failures/wires down etc) but I don't hear of complaints about the train crewing or level of training.

On VT pendolinos the TM still closes the doors. They effectively do so on Voyagers as well as although its the driver who presses the blue button, they do not do so until instructed by the TM.

Also, and again crucially, no TM at Virgin means no train. That won't be the case with FGW.

One wonders how much of this is politically driven. It's well known that Reading commuters have very high political influence — and probably want their fares bringing down.

And that is probably the one thing in all of this that we can guarantee will NOT happen.

 

[HSTEd]

What basis do you have for that prediction? Has Southeastern done away with their on-board managers? Will they? No...

Because the railway will view them as an expensive luxury in the post-McNulty era.
Southeastern have not yet got rid of their OBM because there is an agreement in writing that no train will run without one, even so it is only a matter of time. Probably at the next franchise change at the latest.

The TOCs exist to make money, nothing else.

 

[Starmill]

The TOCs exist to make money, nothing else.

Train Operating Companies or a second member of staff on every train? Such a difficult choice...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... so you are saying that SWT's guards are acting in an unsafe way as the rarely go to the cabs where there are droplights to dispatch trains. Using that logic SWT's may as well go to being DOO.

On many South West Trains services, the guard:

• Does not check tickets, and cannot sell them
• Sits in the cab, invisible to the passengers
• Carries out a function that demonstrably could be done by the driver with no adverse consequences

So why are they still there?

 

[muz379]

Except it would (if the stock you work has droplights in the cab), because those doors won't have droplights.

Only some of the stock I have has droplights . Majority of it does not , and we where talking about opening up the doors not closing and dispatching .

With opening up getting rid of guards would be a compromise of safety . 2 people checking you have not stopped short or overrun is safer than 1 person doing it .

1 person whose sole duty it is to make sure that the doors are released on the right side is far more safer than someone whose got other things to be focussing on as well .

But to me it is certainly *less* safe to dispatch from a position where you cannot see the train for a period of several seconds than a position where you can see it right up until the point it moves, and even safer to dispatch it from a position where you can watch it all the way out of the platform, and even more so if there's a passcom or brake handle to hand so if you did see something go wrong you could stop it straight away.

Thats true , but if the monitors switch off as soon as the train moves then the driver wont be able to see anything either . However if there is a guard at one of the doors dispatching the train then at the more dangerous stations where an incident is more likely a dispatcher will be able to make a signal to the guard to bring the train to a stand .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is different between the method of working used on VT Pendolinos and that proposed for the FGW SETs?
I think all VT services have 3 staff: driver, conductor and catering. Aren't FGW saying the same thing?
There have been some high-profile evacuation situations on Pendolinos (after failures/wires down etc) but I don't hear of complaints about the train crewing or level of training.

.

As far as I am aware on Voyagers and Pendolinios its still the train manager who dispatches the train its only the driver that releases doors at the stations .

With those evacuation situations the TM on virgin services is essentially still a guard so is trained in PTS and evacuation and has route knowledge to execute that training .

The difference being the FGW proposals will mean that the train managers wont be necessary to run the services and there is no guarantees that a train wont run without one meaning that it is unlikely they will receive the same level of training a TM currently receives .

 

[Carlisle]

The

On many South West Trains services, the guard:

• Does not check tickets, and cannot sell them
• Sits in the cab, invisible to the passengers
• Carries out a function that demonstrably could be done by the driver with no adverse consequences

So why are they still there?

Mainly because in 1998 rightly or wrongly SWT took a conscious decision (after ASLEF and RMT voted to strike) to scrap their long planned introduction of DOO on the suburban network (BR had also tried and failed to implement it few years previously ) and instead buy into most of the unions suggestions for the future rolls of their traincrew , also understandably additional events like bad publicity from a recent driver shortage ,horror of the previous years Southall crash and as others have said a potential loss of subsidy maybe also influenced their thinking at the time

 

[The Ham]

Only some of the stock I have has droplights . Majority of it does not , and we where talking about opening up the doors not closing and dispatching .

With opening up getting rid of guards would be a compromise of safety . 2 people checking you have not stopped short or overrun is safer than 1 person doing it .

1 person whose sole duty it is to make sure that the doors are released on the right side is far more safer than someone whose got other things to be focussing on as well .

...so having a guard is of no safety advantage when it comes to despatching trains, contrary to what many on here say. Also, again guards at normal doors would struggle to know if the train was stopped at the right location.

Thats true , but if the monitors switch off as soon as the train moves then the driver wont be able to see anything either . However if there is a guard at one of the doors dispatching the train then at the more dangerous stations where an incident is more likely a dispatcher will be able to make a signal to the guard to bring the train to a stand

.

That is only true if there is a dispatcher at the station and if the dispatcher is visible to the Guard when the incident happens. Which I would suggest is very unlikely to be the case.

 

[me123]

1 person whose sole duty it is to make sure that the doors are released on the right side is far more safer than someone whose got other things to be focussing on as well .

I'm sorry, but I think we need to give drivers some credit here. Because statements like this are making drivers look like morons. Which they are not.

Over and above the route knowledge that drivers acquire prior to driving trains in passenger service, you have to remember here that they have just driven the train along the full length of the platform. If they can't remember which side it's on mere seconds after driving along the length of it, then I would argue that they lack the cognitiive functions needed to drive a train (or indeed live independently).

Furthermore, after having brought the train to a safe standstill, they have to perform similar to checks to those a guard would perform prior to releasing the doors to ensure that the doors align with the platform (aided by cameras/mirrors/etc). Whilst a driver could theoretically open a door on the wrong side, they'd need to have quite severe amnesia and skip quite a few steps in order to do so.

And there is ultimately nothing to stop a guard doing the same if they were so inclined - they don't have to step onto the platform prior to releasing the doors (although, of course, they do).

 

[PermitToTravel]

As someone points out whenever one of these threads appears, the Underground solved this problem decades ago. They have a safety system that will not allow the driver to open the doors on the wrong side, or if they have stopped the train in the wrong place.

And yes, it works on platforms that have multiple lengths of train stopping there.

 

[yorkie]

Because the railway will view them as an expensive luxury in the post-McNulty era.

The railway is seen by some as an expensive luxury! If we do not cut costs, railways will close. The alternative is road transport, which is less safe.

Southeastern have not yet got rid of their OBM because there is an agreement in writing that no train will run without one, even so it is only a matter of time. Probably at the next franchise change at the latest.

Want to bet on that? Not going to happen.

The TOCs exist to make money, nothing else.

You're right that it is the reason Companies bid for franchises, but it is not the reason franchises exist

I also would point out you can't "make money" if there is no-one selling and checking tickets.

The more you free up staff to check and sell tickets, the more money you make, so it's not in their financial interest to abolish on-board staff from these trains completely, but it is in their interest to free up their time to spend on selling and checking tickets.

 

[PermitToTravel]

I also would point out you can't "make money" if there is no-one selling and checking tickets.

Can with government subsidies

 

[yorkie]

I'm sorry, but I think we need to give drivers some credit here. Because statements like this are making drivers look like morons. Which they are not.

Indeed. In fact, I'm told by a reliable source the stats are quite interesting, there are a lot more incidents involving Guards than some would like to admit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can with government subsidies

Which the Government are keen to reduce. The railway can't just sit back and refuse to become more efficient. Railways will close if that happens.

 

[387star]

Like those DOO trains through rural places like Lochwinnoch or Caldercruix with dedicated ticket examiners?

On the contrary; DOO frees up the time of the on-board staff to check tickets. DOO doesn't necessarily mean no on-board staff, and FGW are not proposing removing on-board staff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What basis do you have for that prediction? Has Southeastern done away with their on-board managers? Will they? No...

I understand where you are coming from and the gov wants there to be more staff on the trains but what is important is protecting the pay and conditions including the pay rises members currently see not to mention security


Even if the doors are controlled by the driver it remains important for the guard to be safety critical

 

[ainsworth74]

I find the comments that 'The TOCs are only in it to make money' interesting as I was always under the impression that throughout its existence BR was expected to try and turn a profit or at least break even.

 

[yorkie]

I understand where you are coming from and the gov wants there to be more staff on the trains but what is important is protecting the pay and conditions including the pay rises members currently see not to mention security

You're right - it's about pay. Guards don't want any possibility of pay reductions. That's understandable.

I do not think FGW will actually reduce any current employees pay though, and that is not being proposed.

Even if the doors are controlled by the driver it remains important for the guard to be safety critical

The vast majority of passenger journeys in this country are made on DOO trains, without a Guard. From High Speed Southeastern services travelling at 140mph, to urban systems such as the London Underground, and Strathcylde electrics, a wide range of systems are covered.

There is nothing unsafe about DOO; it is far safer than road transport.

Yes, so the on-board manager of a High Speed Southeastern train may not be able to walk 3 miles up the track to place a detonator to warn other trains of a problem (!), but in fact it's safer to be covered by modern safety systems than use very old methods.

 

[jimm]

Have some of you ever heard of modern ideas like train management systems and GPS and ETCS - the train can be programmed to know where it is and what side the doors should be released and which doors... so pretty much all that the driver - or guard, as the IEPs will also allow for guards to control release and opening of doors - has to do is press the release and close buttons.

And funnily enough, exactly this type of functionality is specified as standard on IEPs, which, I suspect, for all the huffing and puffing in this thread, will be working with train managers on board most of the time.

And should a Class 800 pop up on a fill-in fast turn between Paddington and Oxford, calling only at stations with dispatchers, never mind the on-board CCTV kit - why on earth should it need a guard when Turbos have been doing the same run under DOO rules for over 20 years?

The full door control specs are on pages 45-47 here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf

 

[muz379]

...so having a guard is of no safety advantage when it comes to despatching trains, contrary to what many on here say. Also, again guards at normal doors would struggle to know if the train was stopped at the right location.

.Having the last check along the train before it moves carried out by someone stood on the platform vs having the last check along the train done by someone viewing the train on a monitor is safer in my view .

And Guards at normal doors dont struggle to know that the train has stopped in the right location because the procedure is to open your local door , check that the train hasn't overrun/stopped short and that the platform is safe for passengers to step out onto . once this check has been carried out and you are satisfied that it is safe you then release all of the doors .

This is one of the issues in this debate , you have people who dont actually do the job/know the procedures that are in place commenting on the viability and safety case for someones job .

That is only true if there is a dispatcher at the station and if the dispatcher is visible to the Guard when the incident happens. Which I would suggest is very unlikely to be the case.

But If I am dispatching from a door behind the dispatcher (which you should be doing) then you are going to pass the dispatcher on the way out of the platform so they will be visible to you at some point .

I'm sorry, but I think we need to give drivers some credit here. Because statements like this are making drivers look like morons. Which they are not.

Over and above the route knowledge that drivers acquire prior to driving trains in passenger service, you have to remember here that they have just driven the train along the full length of the platform. If they can't remember which side it's on mere seconds after driving along the length of it, then I would argue that they lack the cognitiive functions needed to drive a train (or indeed live independently).

Furthermore, after having brought the train to a safe standstill, they have to perform similar to checks to those a guard would perform prior to releasing the doors to ensure that the doors align with the platform (aided by cameras/mirrors/etc). Whilst a driver could theoretically open a door on the wrong side, they'd need to have quite severe amnesia and skip quite a few steps in order to do so.

And there is ultimately nothing to stop a guard doing the same if they were so inclined - they don't have to step onto the platform prior to releasing the doors (although, of course, they do).

Credit where credit is due to drivers they do a difficult job . Im not saying they are morons at all .

But stuff like stop shorts and wrong side releases have happened on DOO .

Stop shorts also happen on guard operated services . I personally can see how when concentrating on everything a driver should be concentrating on that forgetting if you have 4 or 6 or 2 coaches can sometimes happen especially if you have been driving 2 coaches over a route all day and then suddenly for the one last train you drive the train length is double the length . The difference with a guard of course is that the situation can be resolved quickly and safely .

Indeed. In fact, I'm told by a reliable source the stats are quite interesting, there are a lot more incidents involving Guards than some would like to admit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Care to substantiate that ?

You're right - it's about pay. Guards don't want any possibility of pay reductions. That's understandable.

I do not think FGW will actually reduce any current employees pay though, and that is not being proposed.

They might not immediately be reducing anyone pay or getting rid of anyone , but the fears are for future pay rises and future job security .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
as for the proposal that if there is no strike action a voluntary redundancy package can be offered that is a clear attempt at divide and rule . Get the older hands that are near to retirement to resist striking for a nice handsome payoff at the cost of people nowhere near retirement age.

 

[yorkie]

This is one of the issues in this debate , you have people who dont actually do the job/know the procedures that are in place commenting on the viability and safety case for someones job

Hmm. But do you accept this is a job that doesn't exist on the majority of train services?

But stuff like stop shorts and wrong side releases have happened on DOO

And on trains with Guards too.

Care to substantiate that ?

I can't say who it was or give the stats, because it was off the record. But DOO is widely used already, and has been for years, so the onus would surely be on you to provide stats backing up any claims it's not safe

But we know it is safe; it's far safer than many forms of transport which are considered acceptable, and I'd argue it's safer than some lines where old methods of working are used. Of course the ultimate in safety would be to have all the systems DOO requires but also retaining a Guard, but that's a luxury we can't really afford.