Arriva Rail North DOO

[387star]

Because it is all based off evidence from the RSSB which showed DCO trains are no less safe then traditionally operated trains with Driver and Guard. It showed most of the second persons benefit is from being able to make a GSMR REC which OBS are trained to make alongside their other safety training. In the vast majority of situations when train protection is required, you will find even when there is a Conductor with route knowledge the Driver is the one who protects the train.

How do you make the call without route knowledge
AFAIK the PTS training has not been implemented for ex guards on SN. Those remaining as guards work 313/171services only except west london line and leatherhead to Guildford

 

[OxtedSignaller]

How do you make the call without route knowledge
AFAIK the PTS training has not been implemented for ex guards on SN. Those remaining as guards work 313/171services only except west london line and leatherhead to Guildford

In the training school they are taught about evacuation, hot weather barriers and GSMR. Full PTS was never going to be delivered the company did not want them laying track circuit clips and detonators. If the train is rapidly catching fire you dont need route knowledge to know it's time for everyone to get off the train. And in any case the Driver with route knowledge would be there to take the lead.

 

[Jonfun]

If the train is rapidly catching fire the priority should be to move passengers away from the fire, not immediately get them off the train. Modern trains are designed to be highly non-flammable and a fire in the engine compartment or an adjacent carriage shouldn't spread for at least 20 or 30 minutes.

In reality a fire probably looks worse than it is and whilst you have to take it seriously immediately evacuating the train into the cess is a knee jerk reaction, 153 aside.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

If the train is rapidly catching fire the priority should be to move passengers away from the fire, not immediately get them off the train. Modern trains are designed to be highly non-flammable and a fire in the engine compartment or an adjacent carriage shouldn't spread for at least 20 or 30 minutes.

In reality a fire probably looks worse than it is and whilst you have to take it seriously immediately evacuating the train into the cess is a knee jerk reaction, 153 aside.

Of course it is always safer to remain on the train but that is what I was trying to get at in regards to evacuation situation aside from a huge inferno spreading through the train or explosion I cannot think of many situations which would require a knee jerk evacuation in which there would be no route trained driver or any other competent persons such as emergency services or company officials to assist.

 

[CN75]

I think most people are missing the point however... Northern like Southern are talking about operating DCO where a second safety trained employee is present on board the services not fully blown DOO.

Not sure where this common confusion comes from, but Northern have never proposed having a second employee on all trains. They have attempted to discuss and plan to implement some driver-only trains.

Even a promise to roster a second person on every train from Northern would be a huge coup for the RMT and require amendment of the franchise agreement.

 

[Robertj21a]

What do you mean by 'serious problem' ?

Multiple passenger egresses,
Millions in delay minutes,
Assaults, rapes, muggings, thefts,
Millions in lost revenue,
Trap and drags,
SSDR (stop short and door releases)
Operational incidents.

Have 12 cars been running around on Thameslink for 20-30 yrs ? in high frequency or are you using the current FLU units as a comparison ?

Are you saying that all of things have happened since the BedPan went DOO ? - sounds like the usual scaremongering without hard facts whatsoever.

 

[CN75]

What do you mean by 'serious problem' ?

Multiple passenger egresses,
Millions in delay minutes,
Assaults, rapes, muggings, thefts,
Millions in lost revenue,
Trap and drags,
SSDR (stop short and door releases)
Operational incidents.

Have 12 cars been running around on Thameslink for 20-30 yrs ? in high frequency or are you using the current FLU units as a comparison ?

Guards cause more delay minutes than driver only services. This is the key reason to amend their jobs. Guards also do not routinely prevent any of the other problems in this list, but could be more effective with customer care if they were not operating train doors from fixed placements in the train.

 

[ComUtoR]

sounds like the usual scaremongering without hard facts whatsoever.

You made a statement about 'serious problems' and them not occurring. I can say for a fact that those incidents I listed happen FREQUENTLY on DOO services. Why can I say that ? Because I drive DOO and have been since I started the railway as a Driver. There is no scaremongering and you can take it or leave it, frankly, I couldn't care. My PERSONAL experience with DOO is that I drive better and perform a lot better with a Guard. The difference between te two types of driving is huge.

I can also say, for a fact, that incidents are higher at my TOC with the DOO services compared to Guarded ones.

As to 'hard facts' I will say again. THERE IS NONE. It has never been recorded or data crunched or anything. There is no proof either way for neither side of the argument. To blindly keep to the rhetoric about DOO being so amazingly safe and nothing has ever gone wrong or will do and its safer than Guards etc etc is flat out wrong and misleading.

The problem is that those of us at the pointy end of the train and those of us who work DOO every single day know what the issues are and how it affects us who actually have to work it.

As to serious incidents. I can highlight with 100% certainty that the West Wickham incident would never of happened if a Guard was present. On the flip side I could highlight James Street and the Guard actually being the cause of the incident.

If DOO Was as safe as they are saying then why is DOO not the new default. DCO is what they are aiming for. They have accepted that having a second person on board is a better way forward than having nobody. DOO is last resort after DCO has failed for some reason.

 

[woodmally]

I think you may be mistaken regarding Japan’s trains, but I am open to correction.

London Underground is a very different operation to Northern - surely you can see that? You’re never far from a station, let alone civilisation generally, and most of those stations are well staffed. Rather different than trundling between Settle and Carlisle on a dark winter’s evening.


“Safety trained” is very different to having proper route knowledge with no risk of one not being present when you need them most, though. If there is a genuine commitment to having a second member of staff present, then why not have them involved in the operation of the train to mitigate some of the risks that are present?

Okay say you are right is it worth striking over. We've had over 20 odd days of Strikes and lost wages for conductors and still the people in power are not convinced that DOO is dangerous and they have guaranteed jobs for the life of the franchise just in a new role. So why not give in and let DOO happen. If any accidents do happen it will be investigated and heads will role. The RMT will be exonerated and full guards will return
Why not do that instead of this action which is not getting anyone anywhere.

 

[ComUtoR]

Guards cause more delay minutes than driver only services.

Again, this is impossible to prove either way. What I can say is that from experience when I have any kind of incident it can take longer. There are also a list of faults that require a competent person. With a Guard provided or at the minimum a Safety trained person could act as that competent person. With DOO we are following cut and run policies. The prime example of where a Guard is a godsend is when there is a passcom. As a Driver I can almost ignore it and let the Guard deal with it. Same with door faults. The rigmarole I have to go through is a nightmare and time consuming. With a Guard its smoother and quicker to deal with.

Guards also do not routinely prevent any of the other problems in this list

Actually they do.

One of our stop short issues is sticking 8s on a 4. Because of the position of the Guard he wouldn't be on the platform in a lot of circumstances. Our Guards are actively preventing SSDR because they have to physically get out and check the train is in the platform. I don't have any key stats to hand but our Stop shorts are pretty much all DOO Drivers. I don't doubt there will be some where a Guard release incorrect but DOO incidents at my TOC are at the top.

There is also a fatigue issue too. Fatigue is high on the RSSB radar and whilst does affect all of us, DOO Driver suffer the worst. Our workload is higher and due to the metro style working the intensity is higher too. Fatigue leads to incident.

Lost revenue.. Guards are there to assist with revenue protection. On DOO services there is no-one to prevent ticket-less travel. If you took the revenue that Guards brought in through ticket-less travel you can see and extrapolate how much DOO is losing. Granted this needs to be tackled before people boarded but a sad fact is that the railway seems to operate with an open door policy. It is well known which stations do not have barriers and how my TOC especially, leaves the gates wide open. Feel tree to trawl the Fares forums to see how widely documented ticket-less travel is. Not forgetting that one of the reasons stated for DCO is to provide revenue protection.

Crime is a difficult one because it will always happen regardless. However, there is well documented evidence that people commit crimes in certain conditions. Some evidence can be gained where my TOC introduced REOs to the service. They are provided on DOO trains as a visible staff presence to help reduce crime. Suffice to say, it reduced crime and anti social behavior. I would hazard a guess as to part of the reasons why a second visible member of staff is the desired outcome from BOTH sides is in part to reduce anti-social behavior.

Guards do a great job and more than just doors.

 

[ComUtoR]

If any accidents do happen it will be investigated and heads will role.

Why would heads roll ? The % of incidents and accidents on DOO Services is totally acceptable.

 

[Carlisle]

One of our stop short issues is sticking 8s on a 4. Because of the position of the Guard he wouldn't be on the platform in a lot of circumstances. Our Guards are actively preventing SSDR because they have to physically get out and check the train is in the platform. .

I think its well acknowledged by the industry that technology (baliese based systems etc) will mostly provide the ansewer to the above issues going forward more effectively than reinstating tradional guards on all routes

 

[woodmally]

Why would heads roll ? The % of incidents and accidents on DOO Services is totally acceptable.

I know that I'm a supporter of DOO I'm just stating if things are as bad as RMT say they will be then heads will roll. I'm saying why strike just let it happen and say I told you so, if they are right. As striking isn't winning that argument. I'm highlighting how this strike isn't really about safety is it.

 

[Robertj21a]

You made a statement about 'serious problems' and them not occurring. I can say for a fact that those incidents I listed happen FREQUENTLY on DOO services. Why can I say that ? Because I drive DOO and have been since I started the railway as a Driver. There is no scaremongering and you can take it or leave it, frankly, I couldn't care. My PERSONAL experience with DOO is that I drive better and perform a lot better with a Guard. The difference between te two types of driving is huge.

I can also say, for a fact, that incidents are higher at my TOC with the DOO services compared to Guarded ones.

As to 'hard facts' I will say again. THERE IS NONE. It has never been recorded or data crunched or anything. There is no proof either way for neither side of the argument. To blindly keep to the rhetoric about DOO being so amazingly safe and nothing has ever gone wrong or will do and its safer than Guards etc etc is flat out wrong and misleading.

The problem is that those of us at the pointy end of the train and those of us who work DOO every single day know what the issues are and how it affects us who actually have to work it.

As to serious incidents. I can highlight with 100% certainty that the West Wickham incident would never of happened if a Guard was present. On the flip side I could highlight James Street and the Guard actually being the cause of the incident.

If DOO Was as safe as they are saying then why is DOO not the new default. DCO is what they are aiming for. They have accepted that having a second person on board is a better way forward than having nobody. DOO is last resort after DCO has failed for some reason.

I specifically referred to the BedPan/Thameslink services. You're suggesting that ALL your list of things have happened on that route - and I've not heard of them at all ?

 

[ComUtoR]

I think its well acknowledged by the industry that technology (baliese based systems etc) will mostly provide the ansewer to the above issues going forward more effectively than reinstating tradional guards on all routes

They have been dragging their heels with stop short technology for years. Even with the new 700s it's still limited to the core section. Even with the other means of SDO on the unit it still opens whatever you want outside the core.

A balise into every station would be great... but so expensive that it just ain't gonna happen any time soon.

 

[ComUtoR]

I specifically referred to the BedPan/Thameslink services. You're suggesting that ALL your list of things have happened on that route - and I've not heard of them at all ?

Yep. Not everything is public knowledge and most isn't. I doubt you could find the latest incident at my depot on anything public facing. Do you really believe that there has been no incidents on the DOO route at all ? In one of the depots I take a PNB in it lists the number of delay minutes. Millions is a drop in the ocean. Over 20-30 years...

Again, take a look through the various Thameslink threads and ones in the fares forum. The absence of revenue protection or enforcement is well mentioned. I even used to go into work (when I was taking the bus) with someone who never paid for his ticket.

 

[387star]

Edited

 

[HowardGWR]

Yep. Not everything is public knowledge and most isn't. I doubt you could find the latest incident at my depot on anything public facing. Do you really believe that there has been no incidents on the DOO route at all ? In one of the depots I take a PNB in it lists the number of delay minutes. Millions is a drop in the ocean. Over 20-30 years...

Again, take a look through the various Thameslink threads and ones in the fares forum. The absence of revenue protection or enforcement is well mentioned. I even used to go into work (when I was taking the bus) with someone who never paid for his ticket.

The only 'incidents' that matter are collisions resulting in injuries, where safety policy is concerned. It may be desirable to have someone serving pax, for other reasons, but that is a separate issue. Delay minutes is another issue. If these could be so reduced by having a guard, so that it was profitable to do so, then it would be done.

I think we should stick to officially confirmed data in these discussions and not anecdote.

 

[Tomnick]

Because it is all based off evidence from the RSSB which showed DCO trains are no less safe then traditionally operated trains with Driver and Guard. It showed most of the second persons benefit is from being able to make a GSMR REC which OBS are trained to make alongside their other safety training. In the vast majority of situations when train protection is required, you will find even when there is a Conductor with route knowledge the Driver is the one who protects the train.

Risk assessments are, of course, fairly subjective and very easily written to justify a desired outcome rather than used as a tool to help determine the most suitable outcome. It's also notable that the RSSB went to great lengths to disappear a previous report stating that the probability of each of a number of "undesired events" (or words to that effect) occurring was greater under DOO. It's pretty obvious, really, that the risk is bound to increase in at least some aspects of the train's operation - the inability of the driver to monitor the platform/train interface once the train starts moving*, for example, or the increased SASSPAD/SOYSPAD risk arising from increased workload/distraction.

* - contrary to the recommendations of, IIRC, the James Street accident report.

It is, of course, true that the Driver will normally lead the emergency protection process - until the day that they can't, because they're dead or unconscious or just unable to leave the cab. Unlikely, maybe, but still an increase in risk no matter how small.

Also a big part was that the train moving forward as DOO was no less safe than leaving passengers on a platform or squeezing them onto the next service.

Which does make sense, but presumably assumes that the proportion of trains that will end up running without a second member of staff is equal to the proportion of trains that are currently cancelled for the lack of a Guard, ignoring the inevitable reality that more trains will run without a second member of staff because the incentive to dangle carrots to cover work is very much reduced.

In the training school they are taught about evacuation, hot weather barriers and GSMR. Full PTS was never going to be delivered the company did not want them laying track circuit clips and detonators. If the train is rapidly catching fire you dont need route knowledge to know it's time for everyone to get off the train. And in any case the Driver with route knowledge would be there to take the lead.

How can you use the GSM-R to make an emergency call without the route knowledge to be able to state where the incident is occurring?

Okay say you are right is it worth striking over. We've had over 20 odd days of Strikes and lost wages for conductors and still the people in power are not convinced that DOO is dangerous and they have guaranteed jobs for the life of the franchise just in a new role. So why not give in and let DOO happen. If any accidents do happen it will be investigated and heads will role. The RMT will be exonerated and full guards will return
Why not do that instead of this action which is not getting anyone anywhere.

It's not as simple as that. If any accidents do happen, the heads that might roll will be largely protected by a mountain of paperwork showing that the risk was assessed and found to be acceptably low etc. etc.. It'll be the operational staff who will be in the firing line - bear in mind that human error is a significant factor in many accidents, and that the risk of a human making an error is very much increased when the human's workload is increased and they're subjected to more distractions.

I think its well acknowledged by the industry that technology (baliese based systems etc) will mostly provide the ansewer to the above issues going forward more effectively than reinstating tradional guards on all routes

If such balises are necessary to mitigate against an identified risk, then how can we justify transferring the Guard's operational duties to the Driver before such time as that mitigation is in place?

 

[scrapy]

How the heck can driver opening guard closing be a compromise. As people have said time and time again its not about who opens and closes the doors its about the second critical member of staff being on the train. Why would Northern accept driver opening guard closing? It would still breach the franchise agreement. Which is the crux of the issue and the fact RMT keep ignoring.

Franchise agreements can and have been changed.

 

[woodmally]

Yep. Not everything is public knowledge and most isn't. I doubt you could find the latest incident at my depot on anything public facing. Do you really believe that there has been no incidents on the DOO route at all ? In one of the depots I take a PNB in it lists the number of delay minutes. Millions is a drop in the ocean. Over 20-30 years...

Again, take a look through the various Thameslink threads and ones in the fares forum. The absence of revenue protection or enforcement is well mentioned. I even used to go into work (when I was taking the bus) with someone who never paid for his ticket.

Why isn't it public knowledge then? Why isn't the RMT telling people about this and splashing it online? I can see why the company wouldn't broadcast it but the RMT?

 

[ComUtoR]

Why isn't it public knowledge then?

Why should every single incident be public knowledge ? Do want to know about every single assault on the railway ? What about every single TPWS activation ? Wrong side release ? Stop short ? Fail to call ? Station overshoot ?

Should the RMT list and report every single time they penalty fare someone ? What about each time they issue a ticket onboard ?

Should every single delay minute attributed to a Driver be public and data crunched to every single delay minute attributed to a Guard ? I doubt the public need to know how many minutes were attributed for each and every single attribution code. It's probably somewhere but the only public facing information will be PPM and RTR figures.

Why isn't the RMT telling people about this and splashing it online?

Ask the RMT

 

[Robertj21a]

Yep. Not everything is public knowledge and most isn't. I doubt you could find the latest incident at my depot on anything public facing. Do you really believe that there has been no incidents on the DOO route at all ? In one of the depots I take a PNB in it lists the number of delay minutes. Millions is a drop in the ocean. Over 20-30 years...

Again, take a look through the various Thameslink threads and ones in the fares forum. The absence of revenue protection or enforcement is well mentioned. I even used to go into work (when I was taking the bus) with someone who never paid for his ticket.

If any of these issues were as serious as you like to make out they would inevitably get into the public domain. The fact that so little of significance - over so very many years -has ever been reported is very telling.
The hard fact is that it's an unfortunate truth that DOO has been highly successful on the route, despite frequent 12 coach trains in/out of London.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Ask the RMT

To be honest we probably don't need to.

 

[Carlisle]

If such balises are necessary to mitigate against an identified risk, then how can we justify transferring the Guard's operational duties to the Driver before such time as that mitigation is in place?

Unless it became mandatory for guards to step out and check all platforms from the rearmost door before releasing the rest , I doubt the risks associated with driver release are significantly increased

 

[Tomnick]

Unless it became mandatory for guards to step out and check all platforms from the rearmost door before releasing the rest , I doubt the risks with driver release are significantly increased

The guard is responsible for checking that the train is correctly platformed, whether they do that by stepping out onto the platform before releasing the rest of the doors (I understand that some companies mandate that), or just by using their route knowledge to determine whether they’re in or not.

A guard’s also less likely to release on the wrong side.

Maybe neither increase in risk could be described as “significant”, but it all adds up - and it certainly doesn’t paint a picture of DOO being safer than operation with a guard!

 

[woodmally]

Why should every single incident be public knowledge ? Do want to know about every single assault on the railway ? What about every single TPWS activation ? Wrong side release ? Stop short ? Fail to call ? Station overshoot ?

Should the RMT list and report every single time they penalty fare someone ? What about each time they issue a ticket onboard ?

Should every single delay minute attributed to a Driver be public and data crunched to every single delay minute attributed to a Guard ? I doubt the public need to know how many minutes were attributed for each and every single attribution code. It's probably somewhere but the only public facing information will be PPM and RTR figures.



Ask the RMT

I agree but if you have incidents where DOO is proven to be unsafe then it's a bit silly of the RMT not to broadcast the fact. Given they are currently arguing for DOO.

 

[Eccles1983]

Unless it became mandatory for guards to step out and check all platforms from the rearmost door before releasing the rest , I doubt the risks associated with driver release are significantly increased

Really?

Driven many long formed 35 yr old trains into short platforms with a signal half way down the platform recently?

If not then your opinion is as valid as mine is on the inner workings of a HR department.

It's all fun and games until a full door release with half a carriage hanging over the end of the platforms and the driver hasn't twigged because he's been distracted or fatigued after dealing with numerous events such as passcoms and cfa's going and several wheelchair passengers.

 

[ComUtoR]

If any of these issues were as serious as you like to make out they would inevitably get into the public domain.

https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/more-500-sex-assaults-reported-14038810

Thameslink

• BTP received 28 reports of sexual assault.
• One report was an incident of rape.
• One case resulted in a charge being brought.

https://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk.../annual-safety-performance-report-2017-18.pdf

Assaults occur on the railway as in any public environment. RSSB uses data from the British Transport Police to analyse trends in assault. The number of BTP-recorded passenger and public assaults in stations or on trains rose in 2017/18 to 5,871, compared with 4,526 for 2016/17. This is an increase of 30% in absolute terms, and 31% on a normalised basis. The overall increase in number was driven mostly by increases in the less serious categories of crime; Common assault increased by 26%, from 2,041 events in 2016/17 to 2,576 in 2017/18, and Harassment increased by 42%, from 1,448 events in 2016/17 to 2,056 in 2017/18. More serious
crimes saw increases on a smaller scale.

When trees fall in the woods. They make sounds.

 

[ComUtoR]

I agree but if you have incidents where DOO is proven to be unsafe....

Because they aren't saying, and neither am I' that it's 'unsafe'. The number of incidents and accidents is simply an acceptable percentage.