ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO

[muz379]

I wonder how many complaints of mis-selling tickets there would be given you have to be offered the cheapest ticket for your journey and not all TVMs can do that, while some of the ones that can need special notes - see the TVMs at Chester which tell Liverpool passengers after 09:30 to NOT buy a ticket to Liverpool STNs.

As ticket office staff can carry out other duties as well which TVMs can't, like taking a disabled passenger over a barrow crossing which passengers aren't permitted to use unattended, keeping the station clean and tidy or contacting BTP if a criminal offence is committed, would the RMT be happier with your alternative?

I am not saying that it is a good idea to get rid of station staff or replace ticket office staff with TVM's and Agency staff, in fact on the contrary .

But once the experiment in reducing operating costs by regrading on board staff has proven to be a failure and it has not resulted in the cost savings that the TOC expected , the next rampage for the axe wielding accountants will be station facilities . Things like toilets , ticket offices and places for commuters to park bikes or wait for the ever delayed trains are all luxuries that are not actually required to run trains . Mark my words do not think that your beloved ticket offices and stations are safe because they are far from it . Just look at the broken promises about ticket offices that have led to much upset in London .


Anyway jcollins you are yet to answer my point about the TOC's responsibilities with regards to protecting staff from assault . If every single train has to carry a second member of staff or it wont be able to run. What do you actually envisage guards will be doing on late night services out of major cities on a Friday and Saturday . I can tell you now the RMT will not lie down and accept staff being forced into performing revenue duties on these trains because that would amount to forcing people into an unsafe working environment .

 

[XC90]

You may think I'm crazy but I feel like its only a matter of time before a second member of staff is re-introduced on all London services. DfT and TfLs possition maybe anti-guard, but positions change with new governments, even within the same government term. The calls keep coming for more accessible railway staff, women only carriages, more policing, checking tickets and of course like said above in emergencies. LO and GTR staffing stations first train to last may be good, but that doesn't help if a DOO service driver is seriously injured in the middle of nowhere or there are disruptives/vandals on-board. Honestly I don't mind having no staff at some stations like Knockholt or Emerson Park 100% of the time, but onboard trains just seem different.

Whether that second member of staff does door duties is up for debate, but I can't see this zero staff visible nonsense carrying on much longer. Its only right unions have said this. More and more pressure for second staff members will build.

They don't need to have only the driver on the train. As per central Scotland, they can ensure a ticket examiner is on every service to both collect revenue and have a staff presence.

 

[ComUtoR]

That's why there should be properly trained staff acting as the second member of staff. If the rear passenger door doesn't close I don't want to see the driver have to walk all the way to the back to sort it out.

From this part of your post can I assume then that you don't support DOO ?

However, one person can't do everything and the unions are reacting prematurely again.

This needs explaining. Your right, one person cannot do everything and that is the point of the statement that has been made. DOO means that the Driver does everything.

How are they reacting prematurely ? If anything this statement has been a long time coming. This statement has come about because DCO is DOO by stealth and as already mentioned it is a means to the same end.

Selfishly I would see DCO as the new minimum requirement but that is because I am already doing everything. For me that is a step up.

 

[XC90]

From this part of your post can I assume then that you don't support DOO ?



This needs explaining. Your right, one person cannot do everything and that is the point of the statement that has been made. DOO means that the Driver does everything.

How are they reacting prematurely ? If anything this statement has been a long time coming. This statement has come about because DCO is DOO by stealth and as already mentioned it is a means to the same end.

Selfishly I would see DCO as the new minimum requirement but that is because I am already doing everything. For me that is a step up.

What does the driver do when the train is stationery at a platform and has a guard?

What's the issue with him/her pressing 2 buttons together to open the doors then 1 button to close them?

 

[muz379]

What does the driver do when the train is stationery at a platform and has a guard?

What's the issue with him/her pressing 2 buttons together to open the doors then 1 button to close them?

If only it was this simple

 

[LowLevel]

What does the driver do when the train is stationery at a platform and has a guard?

What's the issue with him/her pressing 2 buttons together to open the doors then 1 button to close them?

They take a microbreak, check their job card, have a quick drink, write up defects etc. Then they go again. I'm told by drivers who have done DOO and crew working that those few seconds especially on stopping trains make all the difference on a long job.

The checking before committing to pressing the buttons is the significant difference. But it's all been said before!

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

What does the driver do when the train is stationery at a platform and has a guard?

What's the issue with him/her pressing 2 buttons together to open the doors then 1 button to close them?

Thanks for that ! With that statement you have shown that you know nothing about the realities of train driving and train driving under DOO . Just press 2 buttons ! Lol risible !

Lol what job do you do ? Pray tell us so we can discuss it from a point of zero knowledge.

 

[Carlisle]

Thanks for that ! With that statement you have shown that you know nothing about the realities of train driving and train driving under DOO . Just press 2 buttons ! Lol risible !

Lol what job do you do ? Pray tell us so we can discuss it from a point of zero knowledge.

Whilst most on here probably aren't qualified drivers , many will have visited London,Glasgow, Ireland France, Germany, Switzerland etc etc and realise whilst it may not be perfect, DOO/DCD works pretty adequately in many parts of the world these days, and have the discussion from that reality

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

Whilst most on here probably aren't qualified drivers , many will have visited London,Glasgow, Ireland France, Germany, Switzerland etc etc and realise whilst it may not be perfect, DOO/DCD works pretty adequately in many parts of the world these days, and have the discussion from that reality

I've flown in passenger jets about 1000 times all over the world and I still know sweet fa about flying one and I do in fact have a ppl ! Once again I challenge these unqualified DOO gurus to put thier pros and cons down

 

[ComUtoR]

What does the driver do when the train is stationery at a platform and has a guard?

With a Guard it depends on the TOC. Some Drivers do nothing, some will still open the doors but not close them.

What's the issue with him/her pressing 2 buttons together to open the doors then 1 button to close them?

Simplistically ? Safety/Liability

On a deeper level ? We aren't allowed to discuss DOO
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ireland France, Germany, Switzerland etc etc and realise whilst it may not be perfect, DOO/DCD works pretty adequately in many parts of the world these days, and have the discussion from that reality

Congratulations on mediocritry. There is a reason why we run one of the safest railways in the world.

It is the "may not be perfect" and is "adequate" that just isn't acceptable to the Unions. The PTI is the most dangerous point on the railway and has caused serious injury and death to passengers. Any increase of that risk is unacceptable.

If anyone is interested in statistics then please google the other thread on here where the number of injuries etc was listed in black and white. Before that boring and tedious debate starts let me be clear. It does not, and will not, show if it is DOO or Guard operated services.

 

[northwichcat]

What capacity will that second person be?
I mean actually be, not do you think they will be!
Nothing I have been sent has stated what training that second person will receive.

Exactly I don't know yet, you don't know yet and no-one who does know is allowed to say so like I said the union's objections to DCO on Northern are premature until they know who the winning bidder is and what plans they have.

Really?
How is that going to work with ASLEF categorically stating that their members will not be accepting anymore DOO/DCO/woteveritscalledthisweek?

From what I understand DCO is a compromise because of the objections to DOO when the consultation was issued. With the unions arguing it's the same they are giving themselves the reputation of 'we complain about anything and everything without properly looking in to it first' again.

 

[Carlisle]

I'm

Congratulations on mediocritry. There is a reason why we run one of the safest railways in the world.

It is the "may not be perfect" and is "adequate" that just isn't acceptable to the Unions. The PTI is the most dangerous point on the railway and has caused serious injury and death to passengers. Any increase of that risk is unacceptable.

I think that's a good stance from the unions , only problem is if you put a traditional guard back on every train from tomorrow there's no garuntees PTI incidents would reduce much if at all, I think you'd need to also add multiple dispatch staff at almost every station and /or some form of new technology to reduce this much further

 

[Philip C]

Could I pose a couple of questions, as someone who worked thirty odd years in the industry but never actually drove trains?

If DOO/DCO is such a bad idea, that these two Trade Unions are implacably opposed to it, how is it that they assented to its introduction on substantial parts of the network? Is this simply a case of sinner reformed or is it an attempt to draw lines in the sand for political reasons?

How difficult would it be to provide a technical fix that ensured proper berthing before train doors could be released? Would drivers see this as unwanted de-skilling or a solution?

For what it may be worth I would be concerned if my train didn't have a guard/conductor/properly trained customer care type on board. I am used to travelling with drivers doing the door-release but door closure falling to the guard (Hastings Line) and have never noticed any problems with this. On Northern, as between Stockport and Stoke, there seems constant delay and non-slick operation. It strikes me that vast sums have been spent putting capacity into that line only for it to be consumed by operating practices which do not universally apply. In particular we are told that Class 319s could not keep time but would that be true under SouthEastern practices?

How do we get from where we are to a slicker future?

 

[hwl]

How difficult would it be to provide a technical fix that ensured proper berthing before train doors could be released? Would drivers see this as unwanted de-skilling or a solution?

SDO and correct side door opening systems already do this (Hence delays opening doors on 377s at Victoria when it was GPS only before the beacons were fitted as the driver had to override the system).

See:
http://www.hima-sella.co.uk/rail-systems/tracklink-solutions

 

[A-driver]

Could I pose a couple of questions, as someone who worked thirty odd years in the industry but never actually drove trains?



If DOO/DCO is such a bad idea, that these two Trade Unions are implacably opposed to it, how is it that they assented to its introduction on substantial parts of the network? Is this simply a case of sinner reformed or is it an attempt to draw lines in the sand for political reasons?



How difficult would it be to provide a technical fix that ensured proper berthing before train doors could be released? Would drivers see this as unwanted de-skilling or a solution?



For what it may be worth I would be concerned if my train didn't have a guard/conductor/properly trained customer care type on board. I am used to travelling with drivers doing the door-release but door closure falling to the guard (Hastings Line) and have never noticed any problems with this. On Northern, as between Stockport and Stoke, there seems constant delay and non-slick operation. It strikes me that vast sums have been spent putting capacity into that line only for it to be consumed by operating practices which do not universally apply. In particular we are told that Class 319s could not keep time but would that be true under SouthEastern practices?



How do we get from where we are to a slicker future?

Unions can oppose DOO. They can argue against it and make it difficult for it to be implemented. But the can't do anything to actually stop it. All they can do is represent their members and enter into an unresolved dispute. The issue is that this isn't a long term thing so eventually the TOC is more likely to win. Where this is the case all unions can do is get the best deal for their members. This may be more generous redundancy packages or higher salaries for drivers etc but it's not so much a case of selling out as making the most from a bad deal.

The unions don't employ staff, the TOCs do and therefore their powers are far more limited than people on here give them credit.

The union could instruct its members not to work DOO and if the company went ahead and removed guards the drivers could refuse to operate doors. This would obviously cause huge issues for the TOC (no one could get on or off any trains which would continually run empty!) The union would then back up any member who faces disciplinary action for this and their dismissal or disciplinary could lead to a full strike and major industrial dispute, something no TOC would want. But any ban like that is only going to be short term. And could potentially cost the union heavily in legal terms.

This is more a campaign by the unions to highlight the dangers and problems with DOO. Like any campaign it isn't garunteed to prevent something happening. It's more likely to voice strong opposition and ensure all parties know where they stand and how difficult they will make the introduction of DOO using any method they can.

That's how DOO has got through before, most recently on LO. And the extra money to drivers is t ASLEF stabbing the rmt members in the back but the unions ensuring members get the best possible deal.

When LO removed guards the unions opposed it officially and did all they could to g it stopped. But LO went ahead with it anyway. In this case ASLEF and the rmt could do nothing to stop it. They couldn't simply refuse to allow it as the company could simply refuse to let the guards enter restricted staff only areas and stop paying them their wages. The union couldn't force the company to do any different.

 

[ComUtoR]

only problem is if you put a traditional guard back on every train from tomorrow there's no guarantees PTI incidents would reduce much if at all,

The is no guarantee but it will address many issues that DOO has and should reduce many PTI incidents. They have many years of experience and no doubt there has been numerous risk assessments. In simple terms. Two people are better than one.

What is more important is that removing the Guards will increase the risk.

I think you'd need to also add multiple dispatch staff at almost every station and /or some form of new technology to reduce this much further

[meg ryan]Yes, yes and yes !![/meg ryan] Which way do we want to run our railways. Towards a perfectly safe system where staff and passengers are protected. Safe stations 24/7 and no more passengers losing a limb ? Or one where the cost will determine the value of the passenger.

 

[craigybagel]

When LO removed guards the unions opposed it officially and did all they could to g it stopped. But LO went ahead with it anyway. In this case ASLEF and the rmt could do nothing to stop it. They couldn't simply refuse to allow it as the company could simply refuse to let the guards enter restricted staff only areas and stop paying them their wages. The union couldn't force the company to do any different.

In LO's case the drivers already had DOO agreed as part of their contracts as well. Presumably ASLEF will be in a much stronger position with those drivers who haven't got any mention of it at all. I'm sure I remember reading that at some TOCs the drivers contracts do mention DOO even though the TOC concerned doesn't run any passenger services DOO (for some reason merseyrail comes to mind here?) but at those that don't surely all ASLEF have to do is instruct their drivers to follow their contracts?

 

[A-driver]

In LO's case the drivers already had DOO agreed as part of their contracts as well. Presumably ASLEF will be in a much stronger position with those drivers who haven't got any mention of it at all. I'm sure I remember reading that at some TOCs the drivers contracts do mention DOO even though the TOC concerned doesn't run any passenger services DOO (for some reason merseyrail comes to mind here?) but at those that don't surely all ASLEF have to do is instruct their drivers to follow their contracts?

Whilst changes to contract are negotiated through unions due to agreements, an employer is of course able to rewrite contracts as they like, exactly what they do so,stiles in other industries. If they do this then there isn't anything the union can do to stop them except for declaring a dispute and balloting for various forms of action.

 

[74A]

Whilst changes to contract are negotiated through unions due to agreements, an employer is of course able to rewrite contracts as they like, exactly what they do so,stiles in other industries. If they do this then there isn't anything the union can do to stop them except for declaring a dispute and balloting for various forms of action.

I can see strikes happening for this reason. Especially as the new Northern franchise is being let on the basis of DCO and bids have to be submitted on that basis. The only way I can see forward is ASLEF going out on strike.

 

[Don King]

Why as a driver would I want to take on the risk of prosecution due to drunks, junkies and braindead morons messing around during dispatch, when I am concentrating on signals, p-way men, TSRs, ESRs or whatever else?

Someone plays up. I get sent down. I cannot monitor it as safely as a guard. Why should I put my own career at risk, take on CRIMINAL LIABILITY and the risk of prison, whilst either downgrading my colleagues to the level of G4S muppets, or putting them on the dole?

The only people who benefit from DOO are the corporatists at the top who exist in a moneyed little bubble a million miles away from the realities of the front lines on a Saturday night. Forget lions led, by donkeys, DOO, destaffing, use of agency workers and outsourcing is the work of lions led by maggots.

 

[ComUtoR]

The only way I can see forward is ASLEF going out on strike.

OR that the TOC's listen to reason and accept that there is a safety concern and address DOO/DCO and either not implement it or make sure that all risks have been recognised and resolved as well as jobs protected and staff protected from prosecution and that the TOC accepts liability for implementing a less safe method of working.

Striking is the last resort.

 

[craigybagel]

OR that the TOC's listen to reason and accept that there is a safety concern and address DOO/DCO and either not implement it or make sure that all risks have been recognised and resolved as well as jobs protected and staff protected from prosecution and that the TOC accepts liability for implementing a less safe method of working.

Striking is the last resort.

Last resort it may be, but let's face it; which of the above scenarios is more likely?

 

[muz379]

Why as a driver would I want to take on the risk of prosecution due to drunks, junkies and braindead morons messing around during dispatch, when I am concentrating on signals, p-way men, TSRs, ESRs or whatever else?

Someone plays up. I get sent down. I cannot monitor it as safely as a guard. Why should I put my own career at risk, take on CRIMINAL LIABILITY and the risk of prison, whilst either downgrading my colleagues to the level of G4S muppets, or putting them on the dole?

The only people who benefit from DOO are the corporatists at the top who exist in a moneyed little bubble a million miles away from the realities of the front lines on a Saturday night. Forget lions led, by donkeys, DOO, destaffing, use of agency workers and outsourcing is the work of lions led by maggots.

Just for the sake of balance I would like to point out that you already do take on the risk of criminal liability as a train driver we have seen drivers prosecuted for breaches , and there is nothing to protect you from prosecution should you show such a flagrant disregard for rules and training that somebody gets killed or injured .

But taking on the doors would be a whole other set of responsibility and certainly from a legal point of view is the highest profile example of criminal liability following james street and now this new Merseyrail prosecution .

 

[ComUtoR]

Last resort it may be, but let's face it; which of the above scenarios is more likely?

Which is more important ?

Should the union fight for the safety of the passengers and staff alike or should they sit back and reap the rewards of a pay off and let the TOC's run the railways to the bare bones for the sake of a quick penny ?

 

[Don King]

Just for the sake of balance I would like to point out that you already do take on the risk of criminal liability as a train driver we have seen drivers prosecuted for breaches , and there is nothing to protect you from prosecution should you show such a flagrant disregard for rules and training that somebody gets killed or injured .

But taking on the doors would be a whole other set of responsibility and certainly from a legal point of view is the highest profile example of criminal liability following james street and now this new Merseyrail prosecution .

Indeed I do. And I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is people with no clue about the industry, seem to think that train dispatch is something routine with little consequence, which can be done as an after throught to the driver's duties, or just merely assume it is pressing a couple of buttons, rather than a process which if cocked up leads to prosecution, and cannot be treated as just an easy secondary duty.

Ultimately though, if we take an example of a 4 car EMU. If a driver leans out the leading cab window and "looks back", then this is considered safe. If a guard leans out of the rear cab window and "looks forward" rather than step onto the platform and do the necessary checks, it is declared a breach of the rulebook.

No one has ever explained why this is. If DOO is safe, then surely guards can merely look forward without all these extra steps. The fact that the guard has a much more convoluted dispatch procedure, despite in some cases having a better viewing position than the driver, leads me to conclude that DOO is not.

 

[northwichcat]

The following is the wording from the draft franchise contract for Northern

Where in accordance with paragraph 18.1, a Passenger Service is operated as
Driver Controlled Operation the Franchisee shall, in preparing the train crew
diagram relating to such Passenger Service plan for an additional Franchise
Employee (that is, in addition to the driver) to be present on such Passenger
Service for the purposes of customer service and/or revenue control.
...

The Franchisee shall use all reasonable endeavours to operate such Passenger
Service in accordance with the train crew diagram.

There is also a blank section which states

[Bidder to populate – Bidder to amend to specify routes/times of
day where DCO would not be operated as required by section [ ]
of the ITT and specified in its bid]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/417807/northern-franchise-agreement.pdf

So I think the important points there:
1. The franchisee will not be able to schedule a service to run with only the driver on board. (Something the unions should like.)
2. The second member of staff will have to be a TOC employee, STM staff or equivalent don't count. (Something the unions should like.)
3. There's no guarantee that a DCO service will not run as DOO in the event of staff shortages/industrial action unless the winning bidder says otherwise. (Something the unions won't like.)
4. Bidders were permitted to say certain routes or services at certain times of day aren't suitable for DCO. (Something the unions should like.)

 

[Tetchytyke]

So I think the important points there:
1. The franchisee will not be able to schedule a service to run with only the driver on board. (Something the unions should like.)
2. The second member of staff will have to be a TOC employee, STM staff or equivalent don't count. (Something the unions should like.)
3. There's no guarantee that a DCO service will not run as DOO in the event of staff shortages/industrial action unless the winning bidder says otherwise. (Something the unions won't like.)
4. Bidders were permitted to say certain routes or services at certain times of day aren't suitable for DCO. (Something the unions should like.)

So it is the same situation as it is in Scotland, where the second member of staff is not a guard and is not paid the wages of a guard. And if there's a shortage of staff they can run the train without the second member of staff, although there will be a contractual penalty for doing so.

 

[Met Driver]

The is no guarantee but it will address many issues that DOO has and should reduce many PTI incidents. They have many years of experience and no doubt there has been numerous risk assessments. In simple terms. Two people are better than one.

What is more important is that removing the Guards will increase the risk

Having a guard operating the doors and being responsible for PTI safety is only safer than DOO if the type of stock they are working, and the procedures they work to, allow them to continuously monitor the PTI from the point they choose to close the doors and as the train departs the platform.

Using SWT Desiro stock on my local line as an example, when the guard operates the doors from the saloon, there is a period of several seconds between him/her returning to their position having closed the passenger doors and conducted a final PTI check, to closing their local door, giving the starting signal, to the driver starting the train (longer still at long/curved platforms). Absolutely anything could be happening at the PTI during this time, and neither the guard nor driver would be aware. This arrangement is fundamentally dangerous, and anyone with a shred of understanding of PTI risk should be able to picture the sort appalling incident which could go unnoticed in this scenario. Contrast that with DOO where the driver has the ability to monitor the PTI right up until the nanosecond that they decide it is safe to start their train, it’s impossible to argue that guard operation is safer across the board.

To credibly campaign for the retention of guards it must go hand in hand with a campaign for rolling stock design and operational procedures to allow them to actually ensure PTI safety in a meaningful way. Otherwise their retention does nothing for that cause.

 

[craigybagel]

Which is more important ?

Should the union fight for the safety of the passengers and staff alike or should they sit back and reap the rewards of a pay off and let the TOC's run the railways to the bare bones for the sake of a quick penny ?

I'm not complaining about strike action, I'd support it completely (but then I am a guard myself!). My point is that I think it's much more likely some form of dispute will happen than the TOCs choosing on safety grounds to keep 2 man operation of their own accord.

 

[muz379]

Having a guard operating the doors and being responsible for PTI safety is only safer than DOO if the type of stock they are working, and the procedures they work to, allow them to continuously monitor the PTI from the point they choose to close the doors and as the train departs the platform.

Using SWT Desiro stock on my local line as an example, when the guard operates the doors from the saloon, there is a period of several seconds between him/her returning to their position having closed the passenger doors and conducted a final PTI check, to closing their local door, giving the starting signal, to the driver starting the train (longer still at long/curved platforms). Absolutely anything could be happening at the PTI during this time, and neither the guard nor driver would be aware. This arrangement is fundamentally dangerous, and anyone with a shred of understanding of PTI risk should be able to picture the sort appalling incident which could go unnoticed in this scenario. Contrast that with DOO where the driver has the ability to monitor the PTI right up until the nanosecond that they decide it is safe to start their train, it’s impossible to argue that guard operation is safer across the board.

To credibly campaign for the retention of guards it must go hand in hand with a campaign for rolling stock design and operational procedures to allow them to actually ensure PTI safety in a meaningful way. Otherwise their retention does nothing for that cause.

That all changes when a dispatcher is present though , because with a guard the dispatcher can give them the stop signal right up to the point when the guard has passed the dispatcher . Whereas once the driver has started moving the train and observing the road ahead the dispatcher would have to ring the signaller and get the train stopped at the next signal .