• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

muz379

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2014
Messages
2,204
Hmm. But do you accept this is a job that doesn't exist on the majority of train services?


And on trains with Guards too.

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.
What do you mean by a majority of services ? . My understanding is the figure for DOO was only almost a third of services . And it becomes further blurred when you consider services that have an OBM that is required for the service to run but does not control the doors .

Incidents do happen with guards of course they do i've not once denied that I am merely offering common sense reasons as to why it is less likely .

So you have some stats but cant divulge them because they are "off the record" how very convenient .

Ive not argued that DOO is unsafe , I have merely pointed out that it is an obvious safety compromise VS Guard operation . Obviously I think that is a safety compromise we should not make in order to save a few pennies . I can see why people (who mostly dont work on the railways) might accept the safety compromise because overall the level of safety doesn't fall below a certain standard that they have so think DOO is a good idea.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
I've moved a couple of off-topic posts about why SETs are in five and nine car formations to our main SET thread here. This thread is for the potential of DOO on FGW services for more general questions about SET please use the existing thread and for questions about catering arrangements on SETs please see this thread.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
12,984
You're right - it's about pay. Guards don't want any possibility of pay reductions. That's understandable.

That hits the nail on the head.

I understand why people want to protect their terms and conditions but change is a constant in the world and nothing stays the same for ever. No-one is entitled to have things remain in stone forever, whoever they are.

People will also say it's about protecting jobs and I understand that too. However employment patterns constantly change and evolve. There are more people employed int his country than ever before, despite the loss of millions of jobs in 'traditional' industries.
 

Barts76

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2015
Messages
7
The operations director for fgw has sent out a communication to all fgw staff stating that there will still be a train manager on every service, and customer host on every service over an hour, and that pay and t & c's for on board staff will not change.so there's no need to worry about pay really.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,827
The operations director for fgw has sent out a communication to all fgw staff stating that there will still be a train manager on every service
It stated that there'll be a TM diagrammed on every service, didn't it? That's very different to an assurance that there will be one on every service - indeed, doesn't it also state that the intention is for a service to run without a TM if one isn't "immediately available" (perhaps during even minor because there's no incentive to run with any spare cover at all, or because vacancies are left unfilled to save money)...?
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,653
Very good point above

Pay offs to the oldies at the severe detriment of the majority who are constantly paying the high price across society
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
I also would point out you can't "make money" if there is no-one selling and checking tickets.
Which is why barriers are going up all over the place, that way tickets can be checked by ZHC-employed staff on minimum wage with no railway specific training whatsoever.
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.

Or they could just barrier the stations - which will likely work out cheaper. You only need barriers on one end of the journey remember.
 

Tio Terry

Member
Joined
2 May 2014
Messages
1,178
Location
Spain
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.

The same system, known as CSDE - Correct Side Door Enabling - is being rolled out across London Overground along with SDO.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
Honestly I doubt Southeastern RPIs even exist. Never in 10 years have I seen one. To me they are a mythical story.

I can field that one. They camp around the excess windows of London terminals in the morning, then sit out in Dartford, Greenhithe, Swanley, and Sevenoaks for the rest of the day writing penalty fares for people who get there and try to touch out their Oyster cards.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,399
Location
UK
The SETs will have extensive built-in provision for SDO and correct side door enabling - see page 45 & 46 of the specification:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf


I saw the provision for SDO but not for Correct side release. That document states that the Driver is still responsible to release the doors on the correct side.

From what I know of Correct side release (its minimal) You get an alarm if you hit the wrong side release and there is still possibilities to release wrong side (under certain conditions) Without clogging up this thread can anyone give me a ninja run down of how it works on the underground and/or how it works for other stock.

If its so great on the tube then why do Drivers on GTR still bemoan the system ?

Will we ever get to a point where there is only 1 door release button and the Correct Side/SDO system will make the correct decision ?

Cheers in advance.
 

Stompehh

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2013
Messages
160
I saw the provision for SDO but not for Correct side release. That document states that the Driver is still responsible to release the doors on the correct side.

It states "If the Eurobalise provides data which allows the IEP Train to determine on which side of the IEP Train the platform is located, the SDO system must prevent release of the doors on the side of the train where there is no platform."

There is a similar requirement for the same functionality but with ETCS.

So yes, the driver/guard releases the doors, but if the button for the wrong side is pushed, nothing will happen.

As for why some other systems are less successful - I suspect these are probably the ones that are only GPS-based. GPS is a lot less reliable and can't tell, for example, which platform the train is at as it just isn't accurate enough. The Eurobalises should be considerably more robust, and ETCS even more so!

EDIT: The tube is all based on beacons (similar to Eurobalises) as GPS is pretty useless underground! If you look at the ends of the platforms on the sub-surface lines, you will see a ~1.5m (?) wide board on the wall with arrows pointing inwards and (for example) "S-7" written in the middle. The train must stop with the front somewhere within this region to pick up the beacon.
 
Last edited:

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,399
Location
UK
It states "If the Eurobalise provides data which allows the IEP Train to determine on which side of the IEP Train the platform is located, the SDO system must prevent release of the doors on the side of the train where there is no platform."

Yes, that's the alarm I spoke of. However; it is not as accurate as portrayed. There are briefings on GTR side stating the potential pitfalls of the system they have.

There is a similar requirement for the same functionality but with ETCS.

As I understand it. The 700's use 3 systems GPS/Balise/Data and 2 must "agree" for the doors to open. That is the "Correct side release" system. SDO as we currently have it is the old generic system that can easily release doors outside of a platform. Surely this is better than the tube but by all accounts 700's still suffer due to the GPS signal being lost in the core section.

So yes, the driver/guard releases the doors, but if the button for the wrong side is pushed, nothing will happen.

This much I know. It is more the briefings I have seen regarding the system still being able to release outside of the platform if a Driver stops short etc.

Is correct side release the upgrade from SDO ? SDO as mentioned in that document sounds more like Correct side release than SDO (as current versions in use)

If the tube are using beacons is there any reason why this wasn't simply transferred to mainline ?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
What do you mean by a majority of services ? . My understanding is the figure for DOO was only almost a third of services . And it becomes further blurred when you consider services that have an OBM that is required for the service to run but does not control the doors...
The trains with on-board managers (OBMs) are still Driver Only Operated.

I suspect you're excluding services operated by LU, Nexus etc. You might also be excluding services which switch between Guard and DOO operated (in general the DOO part will tend to be the busier part of the journey, such as the main lines into London on Chiltern, Southern etc)

For sure the vast majority of passenger journeys are on DOO services. So if DOO is unsafe as some appear to be claiming, most passengers travel unsafely. I don't agree with that.

I would agree with the concerns of passengers who want to see a visible staff presence on the train, but that's really nothing to do with the DOO argument, as there are trains that are DOO with a better staff presence than trains that are not DOO, and vice-versa, and in this case FGW are going to make the staff be more visible to passengers, not less!
 

Stompehh

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2013
Messages
160
Yes, that's the alarm I spoke of. However; it is not as accurate as portrayed. There are briefings on GTR side stating the potential pitfalls of the system they have.
I think (others can probably confirm) that the GTR system at present is mainly GPS-based outside of the core, so is inaccurate as I mentioned.

This much I know. It is more the briefings I have seen regarding the system still being able to release outside of the platform if a Driver stops short etc.
as above

Is correct side release the upgrade from SDO ? SDO as mentioned in that document sounds more like Correct side release than SDO (as current versions in use)
They are distinct things, although they may well be implemented together.
I can see why you might be confused by the document, as the requirements cover both at the same time.
SDO is about number of doors that open (due to length of platform).
CSDE is about which side the doors open on.

What most of the requirements are saying is effectively "The SDO system shall also act as a CSDE system".

If the tube are using beacons is there any reason why this wasn't simply transferred to mainline ?
£££ :)
 
Last edited:

OxtedL

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
23 Mar 2011
Messages
2,563
If the tube are using beacons is there any reason why this wasn't simply transferred to mainline ?
Those wondering about beacons, I think this is worth a peruse:
http://www.railengineer.uk/2013/04/12/being-selective/

For comparison with what happens on the underground, a good grounding can be found on the District Dave website: http://www.districtdave.co.uk/html/side_door_enable.html

Directly implementing the underground system universally on the mainline would have been quite expensive, as it relies on equipment at the stopping point of every single length train on every single platform. Instead, as things like Electrostars came in they used GPS, supplemented by a few track beacon type things in those places where necessary.

Recently the increased computerisation of trains, the increasing use of SDO, ever increasing awareness of issues like short stops and wrong side opening, the gradual slide towards ETCS based things and quite possibly the call of DOO from over the horizon are tipping the balance towards the improving technologies around track beacons.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,399
Location
UK
I think (others can probably confirm) that the GTR system at present is mainly GPS-based outside of the core, so is inaccurate as I mentioned.

I was informed that it uses 3 systems and 2 must match The balises in the core must not be working ? No GPS/Balise = 1 system left, ergo problems.

What most of the requirements are saying is effectively "The SDO system shall also act as a CSDE system".

Gotchya.



Isn't it always :/

As ETCS increases so should the coverage for CSDE. Is LO using balises ? What about Crossrail ?


ps. Because I'm an idiot.. I was referring to 387's and the CSDE not the 700's which are due later this year :/ I assume the 700's being automated are ballZ deep accurate ?

Cheers for your help :)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Recently the increased computerisation of trains, the increasing use of SDO, ever increasing awareness of issues like short stops and wrong side opening, the gradual slide towards ETCS based things and quite possibly the call of DOO from over the horizon are tipping the balance towards the improving technologies around track beacons.

With the sheer number of incidents related to the PTI and the cost of Delay minutes attributed I do wonder what the cost of implementing whatever system would have saved TOC's already and the future cost savings it would make.

Personally I hate sitting in meetings etc or reading numerous email berating Driver for their failings and when asked what can be done to reduce incidents. We reply "safet systems like CSDE/SDO etc but the response is always money :/

The railway moves forward at a glacial pace. :'(

Keeping on topic... DOO Sucks.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,543
How does the driver, on one of these theoretical trains that have gone without a train manager due to availability, that are heavily used by folk with luggage in some cases, know if the train is correctly loaded, ie that someone hasn't just whacked a massive pushchair, and left a pile of huge suitcases blocking up the exit doors and aisles?

As a guard half my life at origin (and it's worse down south with intermediates) stations when I work from the seaside is spent dragging things out of the emergency exits (doors/aisles) - something I can wander down and see before dispatch and the driver can't. DOO cameras do not show you any of this but it's something I'm heavily aware of as a guard. If your train manager isn't on board at all is it just acceptable to leave it as is because the driver can't monitor it?

Some passengers are just thick. Stupid. They get on, dump piles of belongings and regardless of if it is blocking the carriage exit or toilets, or the doors, just abandon them ("the doors open this side, what's the problem"). It's a commuter train solution being banged on to Intercity/Regional and can't be allowed to stand.

This can not be an optional role on Intercity or Regional trains. It's stupid.
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
LowLevel - I appreciate what you are saying, and in an ideal world there would be staff in each vehicle ensuring everything is correctly stowed, but if it was essential to ensure all these things, you would need 3 Guards on some services (for example Great Northern 12-car services in the evening peak; in reality they have none), and 2 Guards on many others (for example TPE and XC services in multiple; in practice they only have one)

I don't get how it can be considered safer to be in a 3-car TPE unit with incorrectly stowed luggage because it happens to be attached to another 3-car TPE unit with incorrectly stowed luggage but has a Guard who may be able to move up and down those 3 cars to shift that luggage in those cars only (but may not, and in practice on an evening train out of Manchester they rarely actually do!) than to have an 8-car train with potentially unsafely stowed luggage?

As for the commuter vs regional/InterCity point, I also don't get how it can be any different if luggage is incorrectly stowed on a train that runs non-stop London to Biggleswade versus a train that runs non-stop London-Reading? The distances and journey times are similar, and both will be full of commuters.

The last few trains I have caught, with the exception of East Coast, the Guards have remained firmly in the cab.

I know you do a fantastic job as a Guard, as do many other Guards on this forum who I know, but some just sit in the back cab. If it is unsafe for the checks you carry out to not be carried out, then some trains with Guards are, by that definition, unsafe!

Trains that could apparently be considered unsafe include the xxxx Portsmouth to Cardiff (between Westbury & Bristol TM) on xth April as the Guard did not emerge from the rear cab (except to do the doors), and I could name many others I've travelled on recently!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

plymothian

Member
Joined
26 Sep 2010
Messages
735
Location
Plymouth
Be waiting for the day the "guard" gets off to help someone or attend to something out of view of the driver and gets left behind :D After all, the train can operate without him/her.

No point pulling a passcom as they won't apply the brakes automatically any more.
"Excuse me delaying you and the train, I've got to go get permission from the driver to get off"
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
Be waiting for the day the "guard" gets off to help someone or attend to something out of view of the driver and gets left behind :D After all, the train can operate without him/her.

No point pulling a passcom as they won't apply the brakes automatically any more.
"Excuse me delaying you and the train, I've got to go get permission from the driver to get off"

There surely must already be established procedures to prevent this as for 5 years the OBMs have been operating the Javelin services in a very similar way to what's proposed for IEPs
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
.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 .

...yet again an "in my view", no evidence. As I've said before (even if you could state one way or the other for certain) it's going to be pretty much the same in terms of how likely a passenger is to be injured over the course of millions of journeys.

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 .

...so ASDO could lead to journey time improvements as the doors can be released sooner as even if the train hasn't stopped at the right point the doors which can be released are.

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 .

First off, that still doesn't help if there is no dispatcher on the platform.

Also, how far apart from the dispatcher do you have to be? On short trains it probably won't mean a big distance traveled regardless of where the dispatcher was before they were visible. However, if a guard is near the back of a 12 coach train and the dispatcher is near the front, it could easily be over 100m of travel before the guard could see the dispatcher.
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,653
Trains that could apparently be considered unsafe include the xxxx Portsmouth to Cardiff (between Westbury & Bristol TM) on xth April as the Guard did not emerge from the rear cab (except to do the doors), and I could name many others I've travelled on recently!

Glad that wasn't me or indeed anyone at my depot :D
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
I'm due to work 3 trains out of Manchester this evening, on a night where United and City are playing, and there is also WWE wrestling at the Manchester Arena. On those 3 trains, I may well not deem it safe to leave the cab (not a decision I take lightly I might add, in the last 18 months its only happened on about 5 trains), or at least not to leave with a ticket machine in hand.

Surely though this safer than DOO because of the elephant in the room that I and several of my guard colleagues have tried pointing out so far to no avail - if something terribly wrong happens tonight, and as unlikely as it is it is always a possibility, do you want a situation where the driver is responsible for looking after everything simultaneously (despite the fact they may be injured and/or worse) or one where he/she can look after the train whilst I go about looking after everyone inside it? Because that is the reality of what FGW are proposing here - it might not be rostered that way, but they want to be allowed to run trains with potentially the driver as the only staff member on board.

Now I know the pro DOO crowd will all jump on me and point out how DOO is used safely all around the country. To which I will point out two things. Firstly, so far we've been lucky that since any kind of rail disaster is very rare in Britain these days (thankfully) there hasn't been an incident yet where the risks posed by DOO has become an issue - but that doesn't mean that it can't happen. It can, and chances are eventually it sadly probably will.

Secondly, I suggest people read the accident report on the Ufton Nervet disaster. The driver was sadly killed, but the 2 TMs on board did an excellent job of protecting the train and its passengers. This is a train that potentially will be running with just a driver on board in the near future under FGW's proposals.
 

FlippyFF

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2014
Messages
240
Location
Ashford, Kent
There surely must already be established procedures to prevent this as for 5 years the OBMs have been operating the Javelin services in a very similar way to what's proposed for IEPs

I'm a daily commuter on the Javelins and for the first time a few Saturdays back I found myself standing by the door near the wheelchair area and there was a wheelchair user wishing to alight at Ebbsfleet. When the door opened the platform staff inserted a 'key' into a panel by the door - I guess locking it open until they finished helping the wheelchair user alight. Presumably this is mechanical interlock and the driver can't override it with the door close buttons? Could not a similar technique be used by the guard/conductor/OBM?

Simon
 

notadriver

Established Member
Joined
1 Oct 2010
Messages
3,653
Will the SETs have a guards office ? This is something missing in the Javelin trains and the back / intermediate cabs are not to be used except to stow bags. I think it's unfair and I know of OBMs disciplined for being in there :( where are they supposed to sit ?
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,653
Will the SETs have a guards office ? This is something missing in the Javelin trains and the back / intermediate cabs are not to be used except to stow bags. I think it's unfair and I know of OBMs disciplined for being in there :( where are they supposed to sit ?

Waits for the DOO crowd to shout out 'how dare they sit they are supposed to stand every aching second!' <D
 

PermitToTravel

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2011
Messages
3,044
Location
Groningen
I'm a daily commuter on the Javelins and for the first time a few Saturdays back I found myself standing by the door near the wheelchair area and there was a wheelchair user wishing to alight at Ebbsfleet. When the door opened the platform staff inserted a 'key' into a panel by the door - I guess locking it open until they finished helping the wheelchair user alight. Presumably this is mechanical interlock and the driver can't override it with the door close buttons? Could not a similar technique be used by the guard/conductor/OBM?

Simon

Isn't that the key the guard uses to take charge of that door when working as a guard?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
I'm due to work 3 trains out of Manchester this evening, on a night where United and City are playing, and there is also WWE wrestling at the Manchester Arena. On those 3 trains, I may well not deem it safe to leave the cab (not a decision I take lightly I might add, in the last 18 months its only happened on about 5 trains), or at least not to leave with a ticket machine in hand.
So, you're saying that, as commendable as LowLevel's actions regarding luggage etc are, there are no major safety implications of not carrying out those actions?
Surely though this safer than DOO because of the elephant in the room that I and several of my guard colleagues have tried pointing out so far to no avail - if something terribly wrong happens tonight, and as unlikely as it is it is always a possibility, do you want a situation where the driver is responsible for looking after everything simultaneously (despite the fact they may be injured and/or worse) or one where he/she can look after the train whilst I go about looking after everyone inside it? Because that is the reality of what FGW are proposing here - it might not be rostered that way, but they want to be allowed to run trains with potentially the driver as the only staff member on board.
No-one wants such a situation, but given the amount of money available is finite, I'd rather it was spent on avoiding such situations from ever arising.

I'm not sure how you'd be able to look after "everyone" inside the train if you were working a multiple unit train formed of two or more units without corridor connections?
Now I know the pro DOO crowd will all jump on me and point out how DOO is used safely all around the country. To which I will point out two things. Firstly, so far we've been lucky that since any kind of rail disaster is very rare in Britain these days (thankfully) there hasn't been an incident yet where the risks posed by DOO has become an issue - but that doesn't mean that it can't happen. It can, and chances are eventually it sadly probably will.

Secondly, I suggest people read the accident report on the Ufton Nervet disaster. The driver was sadly killed, but the 2 TMs on board did an excellent job of protecting the train and its passengers. This is a train that potentially will be running with just a driver on board in the near future under FGW's proposals.
In an ideal world, you'd have a TM in every vehicle in case of an incident. But that's not practicable. In order to minimise overall transport fatality rates, it requires a balance between getting more people on rail (and off the roads), and making rail safer. The increased safety requirements on DOO routes have saved lives in some incidents, compared to not having those systems and instead having a traditional Guard, while in other examples the increased safety requirements on DOO routes wouldn't have made a difference. Both 'sides' could pick out accident reports to support their particular case!
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
So, you're saying that, as commendable as LowLevel's actions regarding luggage etc are, there are no major safety implications of not carrying out those actions?

Thats not what I said and you know it. I'd expect word twisting like that from some of the lesser informed members of this forum; someone who's admin should know better.

Of course there are, which is why I'll probably walk through the train without my machine to keep an eye on such things. However, I shall perform a dynamic risk assessment as I am trained to do as a professional guard as to the safest course of actions.


No-one wants such a situation, but given the amount of money available is finite, I'd rather it was spent on avoiding such situations from ever arising.

I'm not sure how you'd be able to look after "everyone" inside the train if you were working a multiple unit train formed of two or more units without corridor connections?

Possibly not but surely that's all the more reason for there to be more trained staff on board? Incidentally, we won't be seeing more than two units without corridor connections at FGW so with one staff member in each unit your situation doesn't arise.


In an ideal world, you'd have a TM in every vehicle in case of an incident. But that's not practicable. In order to minimise overall transport fatality rates, it requires a balance between getting more people on rail (and off the roads), and making rail safer. The increased safety requirements on DOO routes have saved lives in some incidents, compared to not having those systems and instead having a traditional Guard, while in other examples the increased safety requirements on DOO routes wouldn't have made a difference. Both 'sides' could pick out accident reports to support their particular case!

Noones suggesting that it should be an either/or. Obviously things like GSMR are a big safety improvement. But why does that make it safe to dispense with the guard? Did we do away with seatbelts when air bags were invented?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top