DOO: why in some places and not others

[BanburyBlue]

Hi all,

There was recent thread asking why DOO was in operation south of Banbury into Marylebone, and not north of Banbury towards Birmingham. In this case, I believe the issue is infrastructure, but it made me wonder why it is allowed/agreed on some lines and not others (accepting that the infrastructure has to be in place etc)? I remember recently there was a very bitter dispute (on I think Southern) where the railway wanted DOO and the unions were against. In my mind DOO would either acceptable or not, if you can have DOO between Banbury and London Marylebone, why can't you have it elsewhere? I'm guessing there may be other factors at play? Perhaps how busy the line is, how busy the trains are, stations on bends without good visibility from the cab etc?

Thanks.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Gosh, haven't there been enough threads about DOO, and the pros and cons of it. It's historic. The unions are much more anti it now, and so any extensions to previously agreed routes are much more difficult to get agreed.

 

[Mojo]

I would imagine had the railways not been privatised then there would be many more locations where full DOO, or at least a way of working similar to the electric network around Glasgow where drivers operate the doors on trains, is in operation.

 

[London Trains]

It can also be to do with companies. For example, Southern has had DOO on their metro services for a long time, including between Epsom and Dorking, where they share the line with SWR who don't use DOO.

 

[Flange Squeal]

It can also be to do with companies. For example, Southern has had DOO on their metro services for a long time, including between Epsom and Dorking, where they share the line with SWR who don't use DOO.

That situation dates back to before the existence of TOCs - the South Eastern and South Central divisions were converted to DOO back in British Rail days. I believe there may have been the very beginnings of DOO on the South Western division before privatisation, as mirrors and even monitors were installed in some locations (with some still standing today!), but privatisation presumably interrupted that. Off the top of my head, SWR is now the only operator of suburban services into London where all their trains have guards. Silverlink Metro services on the North and West London Lines (Richmond to North Woolwich and Clapham Junction to Willesden Junction) routes also retained their guards into privatisation, but these were converted to DOO after TfL's takeover of the Silverlink Metro routes as London Overground.

 

[Starmill]

West Midlands Trains services all have guards, depending on whether you describe that as "suburban services into London".

 

[yorkie]

It can also be to do with companies. For example, Southern has had DOO on their metro services for a long time, including between Epsom and Dorking, where they share the line with SWR who don't use DOO.

Well, Southern isn't a company any more (the company is GTR ) but I know what you mean; but this pre-dates privatisation. BR didn't get round to doing the lines that later became operated by SWT/SWR.

I remember recently there was a very bitter dispute (on I think Southern) where the railway wanted DOO and the unions were against. In my mind DOO would either acceptable or not, if you can have DOO between Banbury and London Marylebone, why can't you have it elsewhere?

No reason why you can't. But it does mean doing battle with the Unions. For example when the Bathgate-Airdrie line reopened, DOO was extended all the way through to Edinburgh, not just on the new bit of track but on the previously Guard-worked Bathgate-Edinburgh section, and the Unions objected, but it did eventually happen. But it may not be deemed worthwhile to do battle with the Unions, due to the disruption they can cause.

 

[Mojo]

I wonder if one of the further initial barriers post-privatisation is that the CCTV cameras and monitors are owned and maintained by the infrastructure operator (Network Rail, was previously Railtrack), whereas DOO only really benefits the passenger train operator. Now that it has become accepted that new trains have train-borne equipment (Crossrail excepted which has platform cameras transmitted to in-cab monitors), this is not so much of a barrier.

 

[hwl]

I wonder if one of the further initial barriers post-privatisation is that the CCTV cameras and monitors are owned and maintained by the infrastructure operator (Network Rail, was previously Railtrack), whereas DOO only really benefits the passenger train operator. Now that it has become accepted that new trains have train-borne equipment (Crossrail excepted which has platform cameras transmitted to in-cab monitors), this is not so much of a barrier.

That was a big part of the issue.
The traditional platform monitor systems have remarkable high maintenance requirements (cost).
The space taken up by CRT platform monitors often means the usable width of the platform is too low for passenger use in those areas hence effectively shortening platforms.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wonder if one of the further initial barriers post-privatisation is that the CCTV cameras and monitors are owned and maintained by the infrastructure operator (Network Rail, was previously Railtrack), whereas DOO only really benefits the passenger train operator. Now that it has become accepted that new trains have train-borne equipment (Crossrail excepted which has platform cameras transmitted to in-cab monitors), this is not so much of a barrier.

This isn’t an issue. There are some TOCs that actually own the platform cameras etc as part of the franchise; any operator who had wanted to do the same would have been able to.

 

[Romsey]

In the early days of Stagecoach taking over the SWT franchise they found out they would be responsible for maintenance of monitors and mirrors. The costs were not that different over a longer period to keeping guards as the monitors were some years old and worn out. Having just had a bruising run in with drivers and cutting too many posts, they wanted to avoid trouble....

 

[Mojo]

This isn’t an issue. There are some TOCs that actually own the platform cameras etc as part of the franchise; any operator who had wanted to do the same would have been able to.

I was more talking about in the earlier years of privatisation I suppose and to a similar extent in the pre-Covid area, there was rarely benefit for Tocs in making such big investments and risking union upset.

 

[Bald Rick]

... there was rarely benefit for Tocs in making such big investments and risking union upset.

That much is true.

 

[HowardGWR]

I can't think why the Severn Beach line could not be DOO, as the platforms are nearly all straight but perhaps if the TOC has to buy the equipment and maintain it (I don't understand why the DfT don't do this as it was so keen to extend DOO) then it is no surprise it is not pursued by GWR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't think why the Severn Beach line could not be DOO, as the platforms are nearly all straight but perhaps if the TOC has to buy the equipment and maintain it (I don't understand why the DfT don't do this as it was so keen to extend DOO) then it is no surprise it is not pursued by GWR.

What's quite interesting about UK DOO is that most other countries that have it have it on metro systems and short rural DMUs. Yet we instead have it on mid-tier middle-distance commuter services.

Rural DOO is quite easy - it doesn't need massive amounts of tech, just a folding wing mirror, or even just "look back" out of the window. It's not much harder to look along a 2-car DMU than an articulated bus.

 

[Ashley Hill]

I can't think why the Severn Beach line could not be DOO, as the platforms are nearly all straight but perhaps if the TOC has to buy the equipment and maintain it (I don't understand why the DfT don't do this as it was so keen to extend DOO) then it is no surprise it is not pursued by GWR.

Because there is a depot full of guards at Bristol Temple Meads (BRI) who have no desire to become glorified clippies! I'm so surprised that ASLEF (who say they are opposed to any extension of DOO) accepted DOO in the GWR drivers restructuring. Nothing like selling the RMT down the river. I expect it was voted through because nobody thought it would ever be considered outside of LTV.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because there is a depot full of guards at BTM who have no desire to become glorified clippies! I'm so surprised that ASLEF (who say they are opposed to any extension of DOO)accepted DOO in the drivers restructuring. Nothing like selling the RMT down the river. I expect it was voted through because nobody thought it would ever be considered outside of LTV.

Is DOO actually proposed on the Severn Beach line? That said, I would say it (and the loop-line part of the Bristol Bath Railway Path) are ripe for tramification, which definitely would be DOO.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Is DOO actually proposed on the Severn Beach line? That said, I would say it (and the loop-line part of the Bristol Bath Railway Path) are ripe for tramification, which definitely would be DOO.

There was talk of a trial (possibly DCO) but unsure if it happened. Now that all GWR turbos are now modified for guards closing the doors (including the Reading sets) then I doubt it'll happen soon.Having said that some do have CCTV monitors in the cabs which we are "told" are nothing to do with DOO or DCO

 

[HowardGWR]

Because there is a depot full of guards at Bristol Temple Meads (BRI) who have no desire to become glorified clippies! I'm so surprised that ASLEF (who say they are opposed to any extension of DOO) accepted DOO in the GWR drivers restructuring. Nothing like selling the RMT down the river. I expect it was voted through because nobody thought it would ever be considered outside of LTV.

I thought the OP made it clear we were discussing logical reasons for extension, not union resistance or interunion squabbles. I can't see any difference between Bristol local services and LTV services, as far as technical issues are concerned. It's even using the same trains now!

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder that if anyone wishes to make any proposals, suggestions or any other speculative postings, this should be posted in the Speculative Ideas section, thanks

 

[Ashley Hill]

Gosh, haven't there been enough threads about DOO, and the pros and cons of it. It's historic. The unions are much more anti it now, and so any extensions to previously agreed routes are much more difficult to get agreed.

I think BrissleGirl sums it up nicely.

 

[tiptoptaff]

I can't think why the Severn Beach line could not be DOO, as the platforms are nearly all straight but perhaps if the TOC has to buy the equipment and maintain it (I don't understand why the DfT don't do this as it was so keen to extend DOO) then it is no surprise it is not pursued by GWR.

Montpellier is curved. Clifton Down is curved. Sea Mills is curved. Shirehampton is curved.
That's half the stations on the branch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Montpellier is curved. Clifton Down is curved. Sea Mills is curved. Shirehampton is curved.
That's half the stations on the branch.

It's easier to dispatch a DOO train on a curve than a guarded one, as each vehicle has a camera so the curve is of no relevance. It might be a reason for not having done it in the days of big mirrors on a stick, but we're well past that.

 

[Re 4/4]

If they can do it in Zurich Stadelhofen for triple sets of Re450/DPZ then it can't be a technical problem.

To be honest though, last time I used the Clifton Down line in the evening during term time, I was quite happy there was a guard on board!

 

[ComUtoR]

It's easier to dispatch a DOO train on a curve than a guarded one, as each vehicle has a camera so the curve is of no relevance. It might be a reason for not having done it in the days of big mirrors on a stick, but we're well past that.

None of my DOO trains have vehicle cameras. And big mirrors on a stick are stick are still in use. We are not past those days at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they can do it in Zurich Stadelhofen for triple sets of Re450/DPZ then it can't be a technical problem.

The Swiss approach to H&S is rather different from ours. Typically they use door sensors rather than closely observing each set of doors (though there's a wing mirror for a cursory look back) - indeed, if the Swiss system is the same as the German one they can't force the doors closed, I was once inadvertently obstructing the sensor of a set of doors and the driver had to get out, come back to the door and tell me to shift.

FWIW this has caused trap-and-drag incidents in both Germany and Switzerland.

 

[Bletchleyite]

None of my DOO trains have vehicle cameras. And big mirrors on a stick are stick are still in use. We are not past those days at all.

True in terms of what's there, but I more meant that I doubt any new DOO scheme (if one got past Unions etc) would be allowed with anything less than cameras.

 

[WL113]

Hi all,

There was recent thread asking why DOO was in operation south of Banbury into Marylebone, and not north of Banbury towards Birmingham. In this case, I believe the issue is infrastructure, but it made me wonder why it is allowed/agreed on some lines and not others (accepting that the infrastructure has to be in place etc)? I remember recently there was a very bitter dispute (on I think Southern) where the railway wanted DOO and the unions were against. In my mind DOO would either acceptable or not, if you can have DOO between Banbury and London Marylebone, why can't you have it elsewhere? I'm guessing there may be other factors at play? Perhaps how busy the line is, how busy the trains are, stations on bends without good visibility from the cab etc?

Thanks.

I believe DOO can't be used in areas with Absolute Block signalling so the Chiltern services had guards as far as Banbury due to the two AB boxes there. Although the area was resignalled in 2016 and the old boxes taken out of use the guards have remained.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I believe DOO can't be used in areas with Absolute Block signalling so the Chiltern services had guards as far as Banbury due to the two AB boxes there. Although the area was resignalled in 2016 and the old boxes taken out of use the guards have remained.

Banbury South fringed to Marylebone IECC at Aynho Junction until its demise, though I couldn't say whether that was fully track circuited or not. But clearly Absolute Block doesn't preclude DOO, since there are plenty of other lines still signalled under AB that use DOO.

 

[LowLevel]

Banbury South fringed to Marylebone IECC at Aynho Junction until its demise, though I couldn't say whether that was fully track circuited or not. But clearly Absolute Block doesn't preclude DOO, since there are plenty of other lines still signalled under AB that use DOO.

Which absolute block lines have DOO-P (no guard/safety critical on board manager) in place? (Excluding Greater Anglia Stadler services that all carry a guard who may or may not operate the doors depending on whether the cameras are working today). I'm not aware of any.

Absolute block is a bit of a misnomer in any case - I work absolute block lines that are actually track circuited through out and the signallers can pretty much see the whole section, I also work Track Circuit Block lines with axle counters or transient track circuits whereby the signaller knows where the train is within the restriction of a length of line several miles long but has no way of knowing where within that section it actually is or whether it has come to grief.