DOO now coming to Sweden

[Meerkat]

It’s in the ORR annual report under section 3:

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/2131/rail-safety-april-2021-to-march-2022.pdf

Ah sorry - thought you were saying that was how many were on DOO lines

 

[yorkie]

T&W Metro has never had guards so no, I don’t expect any different. But you don’t get this level of ASB in West Yorkshire where urban trains do have guards, even if they stay in their cab between stops they have some presence that a DOO service does not.

This has nothing to do with whether the train has a Guard or not; as I said earlier your point is simply about having a visible staff presence.

 

[O L Leigh]

This has nothing to do with whether the train has a Guard or not; as I said earlier your point is simply about having a visible staff presence.

Strictly, no. However, I believe the point @Tetchytyke is making is that by removing guards you remove the mandatory requirement for there to be a second person onboard. DOO as per the Southern or Strathclyde models does not have to be run with a second person because their role is not integral to the operation of the train. The operators or relevant transport authority could simply decide to do away with them if it became expedient for them to do so, and then you lose any possibility of a visible staff presence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Strictly, no. However, I believe the point @Tetchytyke is making is that by removing guards you remove the mandatory requirement for there to be a second person onboard. DOO as per the Southern or Strathclyde models does not have to be run with a second person because their role is not integral to the operation of the train. The operators or relevant transport authority could simply decide to do away with them if it became expedient for them to do so, and then you lose any possibility of a visible staff presence.

An interesting question is how that applies to Merseyrail. The Union agreed dispatch procedure is that the guard dispatches using their proximity card thing. However, physically, that could stop tomorrow - the trains are DOO equipped. I'm not convinced that additional step offers anything at all over the Strathclyde agreement, bar that it's probably a bit safer to have two eyes over one.

 

[yorkie]

Strictly, no. However, I believe the point @Tetchytyke is making is that by removing guards you remove the mandatory requirement for there to be a second person onboard. DOO as per the Southern or Strathclyde models does not have to be run with a second person because their role is not integral to the operation of the train.

That's a benefit for customers, as it means that if the second person isn't available, the train can still run, rather than be cancelled, as would be the case if the train required a traditional Guard. This is in addition to other benefits, such as the staff member being dedicated to customer service matters.

The operators or relevant transport authority could simply decide to do away with them if it became expedient for them to do so, and then you lose any possibility of a visible staff presence.

But they haven't done so.

 

[O L Leigh]

An interesting question is how that applies to Merseyrail. The Union agreed dispatch procedure is that the guard dispatches using their proximity card thing. However, physically, that could stop tomorrow - the trains are DOO equipped. I'm not convinced that additional step offers anything at all over the Strathclyde agreement, bar that it's probably a bit safer to have two eyes over one.

That would depend on precisely what has been agreed. That a train is capable of DOO does not mean that it will be operated as such. Let’s face it, virtually every train built since the 1980s has been capable of DOO operation.

But they haven't done so.

… yet.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This has nothing to do with whether the train has a Guard or not; as I said earlier your point is simply about having a visible staff presence.

My point is that the guard+driver method of operation mandates two members of staff on a train, and DOO does not. Therefore, under DOO, any second member of staff becomes an optional extra that can be removed at any time.

And if it becomes expedient to remove them you end up with no visible staff at all on most of the network, as is the case on T&W Metro.

 

[yorkie]

… yet.

Is there any evidence of that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would depend on precisely what has been agreed. That a train is capable of DOO does not mean that it will be operated as such. Let’s face it, virtually every train built since the 1980s has been capable of DOO operation.

But then that's true of any second member of staff. The Union agreement could be that every T&W Metro train after 2100 must carry an SIA approved security guard (sounds like this might not be a bad plan), and if it doesn't the train is cancelled or runs empty.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But they haven't done so.

…yet.

But in a climate where Bradford is losing half its trains on some routes, give it time.

I’d be interested in whether OBS numbers have remained constant though.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Its worth pointing out that many of the TPE drivers at Newcastle that are ex T&W metro drivers are united in their feeling that they didnt like working DOO on Metro and they would never agree to DOO on TPE as a result of their experiences.

 

[Carlisle]

T&W metro drivers are united in their feeling that they didnt like working DOO on Metro

Isn’t pretty much every major subway system apart from New York mainly OPO or driverless nowadays ?

 

[Wyrleybart]

What's that got to do with the matter in hand?

It means that DOO (NP or P) is a really safe effective and financially attractive method of working if all the parameters are met.

Trains in good condition with no defects
Cameras / mirrors clean and in good condition
Staff are on the ball and alert
Trains are punctual
Human support is available should incidents happen

Sadly, none of those happened at Lac Megantic.

The locos were in poor condition and the remaining loco left running was smoking badly - considered to be a fire risk by the FD

The train was very late meaning the driver was going to "bust his hours" and in North America out of hours means just that - off the train.

There was no human support and because the solo engineer had "bust his hours" he hadn't got the time to go to each vehicle on the train and apply handbrakes, so he could go back to the loco and shut it down. He was relying on the compressor on the loco keepng the auto brakes on on the train.

Perhaps if any one of those parameters were met then the DOO train would have been safe, but we don't necessarily expect the best scenario when writing the rules of transportation. We can probably all recall incidents where a second person on the train would be a real help - ranging from the Thames core incident were the pax "self evacuated" to the incident when a GW HST broke a metal pipe in the rear power car in Wiltshire. etc etc

If it is acceptable that a handful of pax or staff might be injured or lose their lives once in a long while then fine. People often have the choice, but there are always two people in the front of a passenger carrying aeroplane over a couple of dozen seats (don't know exact number)

I believe it is known as the Swiss cheese effect if asll the holes line up, but I realise my thoughts about DOO are in the minority so won't labour the point any further and wish our Swedish friend good luck.

anthe locomotives

 

[yorkie]

It means that DOO (NP or P) is a really safe effective and financially attractive method of working if all the parameters are met.

Trains in good condition with no defects
Cameras / mirrors clean and in good condition
Staff are on the ball and alert
Trains are punctual
Human support is available should incidents happen

I am not sure of your point; Is Guarded operation safe if trains are in poor condition, staff are not alert, etc?

Sadly, none of those happened at Lac Megantic.

The locos were in poor condition and the remaining loco left running was smoking badly - considered to be a fire risk by the FD

The train was very late meaning the driver was going to "bust his hours" and in North America out of hours means just that - off the train.

There was no human support and because the solo engineer had "bust his hours" he hadn't got the time to go to each vehicle on the train and apply handbrakes, so he could go back to the loco and shut it down. He was relying on the compressor on the loco keepng the auto brakes on on the train.

Perhaps if any one of those parameters were met then the DOO train would have been safe, but we don't necessarily expect the best scenario when writing the rules of transportation. We can probably all recall incidents where a second person on the train would be a real help - ranging from the Thames core incident were the pax "self evacuated" to the incident when a GW HST broke a metal pipe in the rear power car in Wiltshire. etc etc

If it is acceptable that a handful of pax or staff might be injured or lose their lives once in a long while then fine. People often have the choice, but there are always two people in the front of a passenger carrying aeroplane over a couple of dozen seats (don't know exact number)

I believe it is known as the Swiss cheese effect if asll the holes line up, but I realise my thoughts about DOO are in the minority so won't labour the point any further and wish our Swedish friend good luck.

anthe locomotives

I don't know what you are referring to, but are you suggesting DOO is not safe?

I'd you are referring to an incident on a (freight?) train in North America, I don't understand the relevance here?

Safety standards in the USA seem to be much poorer than in Europe.

DOO trains are among the safest modes of transport on earth; many millions of journeys are made safely daily all over the world.

 

[island]

Safety standards in the USA seem to be much poorer than in Europe.

Lac Mégantic is in Canada, though the point stands.

 

[g492p]

Isn’t pretty much every major subway system apart from New York mainly OPO or driverless nowadays ?

Off the top of my head the Tokyo Subway and commuter lines have guards.