W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[regulation9]

This is what I don't get from FGW management........ :roll::roll:

Previously they said the train can run DOO during disruption to pick up a guard en-route, since then I presume this has been dropped as a concession to the RMT? Let's assume it is for a minute for the sake of debate....

Train Managers and Conductors will still be required to maintain the same competencies and will operate doors in an 'emergency', again with FGW and their very broad statements I assume this is DOO in cab equipment failure.

So FGW are going to still have the exact same door training now, same wages, same conditions, same job description (with the exception of doing doors at every station) for Train Managers? ...

So what do FGW actually gain from this? They've forced the unions hands at striking, they've lost revenue, lost passenger trust as they can't guarantee a decent service for passengers west of Didcot and they've hit employee morale.

I just don't get it. CD/RA at stations or a guard giving two on the buzzer is the same timings on paper for dwell times.

The only reason I can fathom for all this dispute is that someone at the DfT want to gain a few Tory points for 'beating the RMT' and someone in FGW management wants to stick this "victory" on their CV to brown nose their way up into a directorship.

The people that suffer from this are the staff at losing wages with a bit of abuse from passengers and the fare paying passengers, some of which are posting in this exact thread whilst trying to defend FGW.

Barmy.

If you saw that train crowded with 400+ people on a snowy winters evening. Would you still get on it ?

If you were a lone female at 0130 in the morning and the train was half empty would you still get on it ? What if it had a small group of hoodies with alcopops listening to loud music ?

Yes and yes.

 

[FordFocus]

1) The train is designed with cameras in the driving cab. Some people will think this was done just to undermine certain grades, but others will argue that this is an attempt to provide technology to help the dispatch process. It makes dispatch on curved platforms easier. It gives a better view of the doors than looking from 5 coaches away on a dark rainy evening. LUL use it and it works for them. Javelins have it and it works for Southeastern. You can't say it does not work.

I've worked many trains as a guard on curved platforms, the trick is to stand in the middle as your able to observe the entire train best at this position. I also work DOO trains and some of the monitors especially at night are pants because of poor lighting or rain. On occasions I actually have to leave the driving cab to walk down past several cars just to see what's happening at the rear of the train because of the DOO equipment isn't up for the job. I see what your saying though!

2) The Driver closing the doors is faster. Not by much, but it is faster. Basically you save the time it takes for the Guard to re-board the train, close the local door and send and receive 2 from the Driver. Watch the final stage of a Voyager dispatch and compare it with a train operated by a Driver. It's probably not enough to change journey times but it might help right time running.

Again I can see what your saying but it's very marginal, I'd say 5-10 tops if that. The issue with FGW is it's not a stopping service every 4 minutes, it's an Intercity service with stops every 20 minutes or so. Once interlock is gained what happens next will be the key part for any part of this "time saving" that FGW want. Instead of a guard been on the train, gaining interlock and giving 2 on the buzzer almost instantly it will have to be done by platform staff giving a CD (close doors) and then RA (right away) signal to the driver using the equipment. No time saving at all, if anything it could potentially increase if the platform staff have to move to and from the dispatch box during the closing door procedure..

3) Reducing the number of staff needed to operate a train and increasing the number devoted to customer service is a good thing. Again people may disagree or see conspiracy here, but any good business would try to increase the resource it puts into the activities that add value. If you see the railway as a customer focussed business you would probably want to do this. There is another way of looking at this. If the only train you ever saw in your life was a train operated only by a Driver (commuters from Paisley to Glasgow Central or Ebsfleet to St Pancras for example) would you invent the role of the Guard to close the doors?

If drivers operate the doors in all of this, what is the TM going to do? If they are stood in the train selling that valuable extra ticket they are blocking the aisle for people to get on and off, this speaking from experience as a guard when somebody else has operated the doors for me. They also aren't aware of the passengers boarding and general platform situation e.g. large groups boarding or elderly customers, potentially a wheelchair passenger has boarded onto the front carriage and because they are the last coach they won't be aware.

I believe the TM will be stood in a vestibule looking down the platform at each station to see what's going on. May as well operate the doors whilst they are there

As I say, you may disagree with all this, but it is possible to make an alternative argument.

I do disagree but I see your points

 

[Captain Chaos]

How many toddlers know the meaning of the word belligerent? :roll:

Had a chat with RMT members on picket last weekend. 'Belligerent' described their attitude perfectly. Also chatted with a GWR TM yesterday who was very unhappy with his union and being pressured by union reps not to work last weekend.

Only read the Daily Mail when at Mumsy's. Papers of choice are the Guardian and Independent.

So if you want to make another personal insult (why do so many of the pro strike supporters on this thread feel the need to resort to personal jibes?) try 'clueless leftie'.

I wouldn't expect any toddlers to know such a word. Not that it's really relevant. It seems quite pedantic to bring it up tbh.

In all honesty you are bringing this reaction from others upon yourself. You repeatedly refer to the RMT and the strikers as 'beligerents' yet always refer to the company in a normal manner. You clearly have a very strong point of view on this and that's cool. So do others. But whether the word is accurate or not. Name calling isn't on and that is essentially what it is. It's referring to a set of people in a negetive manner because of your own point of view. By all means express your view. But if you keep labelling others, regardless of how accurate it is or not, don't be surprised when that same group retaliate.

If we're grown up enough to talk on here, then I'm sure we can be grown up enough to have a civil conversation. Let's stop the labelling. It's getting a bit annoying and quite frankly it's serving no purpose.

 

[bnm]

It is a belligerent minority of RMT members at GWR/FGW who are holding sway.

Got an assurance from GWR/FGW, following the first walk out, that Class 800/801 would not operate without a safety competent (the original ballot used that word) guard, with other reasons for the strike largely settled. Now the dispute is about who operates the doors. A belligerent moving of the goalposts by the RMT, and not an original reason for industrial action on the ballot.

 

[Captain Chaos]

It is a belligerent minority of RMT members at GWR/FGW who are holding sway.

Got an assurance from GWR/FGW, following the first walk out, that Class 800/801 would not operate without a safety competent (the original ballot used that word) guard, with other reasons for the strike largely settled. Now the dispute is about who operates the doors. A belligerent moving of the goalposts by the RMT, and not an original reason for industrial action on the ballot.

Really? You seem to know more than I do despite all the correspondence from the RMT and company I have received on this issue. The RMT certainly haven't moved the goalposts at all. The unions are opposed to Driver Only Operation and having the drivers operate the doors fully means that regardless of who is on the train, it is still being operated by only the driver. This dispute has always been about DOO and control of the doors. I think everyone knows that.

Can you tell me the other parts of the dispute that are largely settled then? Because the correspondence I have had suggests otherwise. Unless I'm reading things wrong of course? If I am I hope you can point me in the right direction. We all want this settled after all.

 

[Jonfun]

It is a belligerent minority of RMT members at GWR/FGW who are holding sway.

Got an assurance from GWR/FGW, following the first walk out, that Class 800/801 would not operate without a safety competent (the original ballot used that word) guard, with other reasons for the strike largely settled. Now the dispute is about who operates the doors. A belligerent moving of the goalposts by the RMT, and not an original reason for industrial action on the ballot.

I thought one of the main areas in this dispute is, always has been, and always will be, the introduction of DOO. I don't see how anything's changed, even with the company saying that Train Managers will be trained to "operate doors in an emergency" - of which I'm yet to hear an example of an emergency which would require the Train Manager to operate the doors.

 

[bnm]

Really? You seem to know more than I do despite all the correspondence from the RMT and company I have received on this issue. The RMT certainly haven't moved the goalposts at all. The unions are opposed to Driver Only Operation and having the drivers operate the doors fully means that regardless of who is on the train, it is still being operated by only the driver. This dispute has always been about DOO and control of the doors. I think everyone knows that.

Can you tell me the other parts of the dispute that are largely settled then? Because the correspondence I have had suggests otherwise. Unless I'm reading things wrong of course? If I am I hope you can point me in the right direction. We all want this settled after all.

I can only go by FGW/GWR press releases. If FGW/GWR are being disingenuous then why aren't the RMT publicly challenging those statements?

Perhaps, if you want to change my mind (admittedly that's unlikely) on this dispute, you'd care to publish some of these letters the union are sending to members.

Ultimately, the operators (and by extension the DfT) will prevail. Just as their predecessors did when legacy rail unions insisted on HST secondmen. May take time, but the guards role will change and existing staff will have to adapt or look elsewhere for employment.

 

[GadgetMan]

operate doors in an emergency

This could easily equal "We'll show them how to pull the Emergency Egress handle"

 

[Jonfun]

This could easily equal "We'll show them how to pull the Emergency Egress handle"

Quite.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I can only go by FGW/GWR press releases. If FGW/GWR are being disingenuous then why aren't the RMT publicly challenging those statements?

Perhaps, if you want to change my mind (admittedly that's unlikely) on this dispute, you'd care to publish some of these letters the union are sending to members.

Ultimately, the operators (and by extension the DfT) will prevail. Just as their predecessors did when legacy rail unions insisted on HST secondmen. May take time, but the guards role will change and existing staff will have to adapt or look elsewhere for employment.

I've no doubt it will. All the letters are on the website. But if you're going to keep the staff on the train anyway then what's the point in insisting on these changes, particularly as the company isn't making any money out of it? The claim is that it's key to operating the new services, even though they can run just like HST services do now. So how is it key? Nobody has explained that to anyone. So the question remains, why change working practice? I'm yet to see a good reason for it. Until a convincing case is put to me I shall remain 'belligerent' as you so love to call us. I'm welcome to change. But if you're going to make such a significant change, then surely it's only right that we can expect a good case to be out forward, no? Otherwise it just comes across as cost cutting.

Let's not also forget that the Turbos are now involved in the dispute too...

 

[455driver]

1) The train is designed with cameras in the driving cab. Some people will think this was done just to undermine certain grades, but others will argue that this is an attempt to provide technology to help the dispatch process. It makes dispatch on curved platforms easier. It gives a better view of the doors than looking from 5 coaches away on a dark rainy evening. LUL use it and it works for them. Javelins have it and it works for Southeastern. You can't say it does not work.

2) The Driver closing the doors is faster. Not by much, but it is faster. Basically you save the time it takes for the Guard to re-board the train, close the local door and send and receive 2 from the Driver. Watch the final stage of a Voyager dispatch and compare it with a train operated by a Driver. It's probably not enough to change journey times but it might help right time running.

3) Reducing the number of staff needed to operate a train and increasing the number devoted to customer service is a good thing. Again people may disagree or see conspiracy here, but any good business would try to increase the resource it puts into the activities that add value. If you see the railway as a customer focussed business you would probably want to do this. There is another way of looking at this. If the only train you ever saw in your life was a train operated only by a Driver (commuters from Paisley to Glasgow Central or Ebsfleet to St Pancras for example) would you invent the role of the Guard to close the doors?

As I say, you may disagree with all this, but it is possible to make an alternative argument.

1) wrong, cameras in the cab have never been proposed.
2) no it isn't, guard working with a whistle is fastest.
3) until an emergency happens, or the train breaks down or the driver is incapacitated etc etc.

 

[ainsworth74]

1) wrong, cameras in the cab have never been proposed.

I think they misspoke and actually they meant screens in the cab which would display images from bodyside cameras during dispatch. Those are included as a requirement within the Train Technical Specification. But as you say actual cameras in the cab, as far as I'm aware, are absolutely not part of the specification.

 

[A-driver]

I think they misspoke and actually they meant screens in the cab which would display images from bodyside cameras during dispatch. Those are included as a requirement within the Train Technical Specification. But as you say actual cameras in the cab, as far as I'm aware, are absolutely not part of the specification.

That only applies to the new trains. As far as I understand it FGW are also proposing moving existing DOO stock to current non DOO areas. These trains will need external dispatch equipment (ie monitors as mirrors no longer meet the standard for DOO dispatch).

 

[Aictos]

That only applies to the new trains. As far as I understand it FGW are also proposing moving existing DOO stock to current non DOO areas. These trains will need external dispatch equipment (ie monitors as mirrors no longer meet the standard for DOO dispatch).

However hasn't FGW said that the Turbos will still require guards when they go west so no need for external dispatch equipment unless have I misunderstand their statement?

 

[455driver]

However hasn't FGW said that the Turbos will still require guards when they go west so no need for external dispatch equipment unless have I misunderstand their statement?

Yes they did, but in the meeting a couple of weeks ago (the only neeting ASLEF were invited to) at the end of it Mark Hopwood had to 'nip out and print something off', which was the DOO proposals for the Bristol area when the 165/166's are transferred.

What does that tell you about fgws (non official) 'guarantees'?

 

[NX]

FGW have said that IEP will run with a Train Manager all the time as will Turbos that arrive in Bristol area. However both will be full DCO, this leads the way for DOO in the next franchise, RMT want to secure their members jobs with guard door operation now.

Buffets is a non dispute and high level Union officers will admit this in private, engineering is a serious issue but really is out of the companies hands, the union dropped the ball here many years ago.

NX

 

[Wolfie]

Yes they did, but in the meeting a couple of weeks ago (the only neeting ASLEF were invited to) at the end of it Mark Hopwood had to 'nip out and print something off', which was the DOO proposals for the Bristol area when the 165/166's are transferred.

What does that tell you about fgws (non official) 'guarantees'?

Hum, hardly reassuring I would agree...

Remember that political party who betrayed the students over university fees ? Neither do I...

Which one? Labour under Blair which stated that they wouldn't bring in student tuition fees in England in their manifesto and then did so? The Lib Dems under Clegg that said that they would abolish said fees in England and then went into a coalition which promptly trebled them?

You can normally tell when a politician is lying, his/her mouth is open!

 

[irish_rail]

I am looking forward to when ASLEF get involved (which it eventually will - as ASLEFs position is that there should be NO extension of DOO). Have heard those words directly from Mick Whelans lips...

I think we will be talking more like figures of 5 percent of trains being able to run, as its not so easy to train up a driver in 2 days...... Company will soon back down then!

So however much some on here bang on about how the RMTs dispute is pointless and how DOO is safer and advantageous, I still think there isn't a hope in hell of it actually happening.....

 

[Kentish Paul]

If drivers operate the doors in all of this, what is the TM going to do?

The same as they do on Southeastern class 395 services.

 

[notadriver]

I think we will be talking more like figures of 5 percent of trains being able to run, as its not so easy to train up a driver in 2 days...... Company will soon back down then!

I hope you're right and in such an eventuality FGW don't attempt to 'fast track' temporary drivers in the way that other transport companies can.

 

[Robertj21a]

Although I'm very conscious that we're all simply repeating everything that's already been said (very many times) I still feel that this FGW case must be significantly weakened if DOO is already in operation elsewhere.

 

[87015]

I am looking forward to when ASLEF get involved (which it eventually will - as ASLEFs position is that there should be NO extension of DOO). Have heard those words directly from Mick Whelans lips...

But they have agreed DOO extensions last year on LO and this year on c2c.

 

[notadriver]

Well I still feel any further extension to DOO must be stopped despite its use elsewhere. ASLEF can put a stop to it.

 

[swt_passenger]

The same as they do on Southeastern class 395 services.

...and XC 220/221 operated services. But this has all been mentioned before.

 

[notadriver]

The guard is in charge of the train on XC services.

 

[Kentish Paul]

...and XC 220/221 operated services. But this has all been mentioned before.

Indeed it's been mentioned before but it seems strange that practices which are accepted on other TOCs are suddenly totaly unacceptable.

I've used Class 395 HS1 services since the start and found no problem with despatch etc whatsoever. The OBM will renew a weekly season ticket on board.

 

[455driver]

The same as they do on Southeastern class 395 services.

Where is that written down in black and white please?

FGW/DaFT are playing the long game here, concede an inch now and they will take a mile at franchise change over time and if the drivers are already doing the doors any industrial action by the TM's will be pointless. Anyone that thinks FGW/GWR/DaFT will stop at the driver doing the doors but the trains will keep a fully competent TM on board in the future are frankly deluded, can anyone tell me exactly where the savings are coming from please, and don't give me that 'the driver doing the doors is quicker' cowmanure because that is a compkete red herring.

 

[Kentish Paul]

Where is that written down in black and white please?
.

I was only answering a question as to what the TMs will do if they don't do the doors. They seem to do a lot on HS1.
I would always want a second member or staff on a train. I can only speak of my local experiance. They all have two members on board.

 

[Jonfun]

Indeed it's been mentioned before but it seems strange that practices which are accepted on other TOCs are suddenly totaly unacceptable.

I've used Class 395 HS1 services since the start and found no problem with despatch etc whatsoever. The OBM will renew a weekly season ticket on board.

SE 395s are DOO, XC services are not. They run with a Guard.

With respect, can I ask what qualifications you have to be able to identify problems with train dispatch?

 

[Captain Chaos]

Have they not also has a couple of PTI incidents on HS1 involving 395's?