Driver Only Operation (DOO) - When will it arrive?

[wigwamman]

What about northerns and the tpe network,some of the routes are so old a shedfull of money would need to be spent imo,southport for instance is still ab upto parbold.
What are the main barriers to its introduction as in mcnultys words a gaurd should only be retained for technical or commercial reasons what would be the prime technical reasons against its introduction absoloute block apart

 

[ainsworth74]

Main barriers other than the unions you mean? I would imagine mostly after that the main barriers are almost only the cost of installing DOO equipment on stations and trains as well as either manning more booking offices for longer or installing more TVMs (or both). I don't think there's much else preventing the wider deployment of DOO other than money and unwillingness to fight the unions over it.

 

[wigwamman]

I think there is a willingness to take the unions on over this issue,after all the wage saving from getting rid of gaurds would be massive,would the cost of getting all the platforms straight,new stock and installing mirrors and or cameras plus manning the stations then also paying the drivers to go doo outweigh the savings to be made over say 12 years,I'm not sure if it would,I suppose some tocs are more at risk of going doo than others depending on how modern their infrastructure is.

 

[ainsworth74]

Has there been any evidence that any TOC or the DfT are actually willing to take them on? How many lines went over to DOO under BR? How many have gone to DOO since privatisation? As for the exact costs, I don't know, but you'd have to assume that it does make financial sense seeing as BR (who were masters of saving a penny or two) did implement it fairly widely in some areas and of course when BR were doing that guards pay was not as good as it is these days.

 

[wigwamman]

I have heard that xc have approached the aslef company council and asked them are they willing to work DOO in the next franchise however these are unconfirmed mess room rumors,I take your point about the savings relating to pay but I assume BR were looking to save those costs over the long term not a 12-15 year franchise period.

 

[ainsworth74]

I would be surprised if XC went DOO in terms of removing a member of staff entirely. I could see them going down the road of having someone on board who's job was to check/sell tickets and do customer service whilst leaving the doors to the Driver (which 22xs are already basically set up to do). On intercity services I just can't see there ever being a situation where we end up without some sort of member of staff on board whose job is to deal with tickets.

 

[68000]

DOO does not necessarily mean no TOC staff on the train. I have commuted for nearly 19 years on DOO services into Glasgow City Centre. I have only seen one issue in that time and that was when the driver at Glasgow Central LL closed the doors when there were passengers still trying to get off. DOO is a safe and efficient way to run a train service

 

[wigwamman]

I have no doubt DOO if done correctly is safe as it is in oepration and has been for some time in a lot of places,the idea of a ticket examiner is a different proposition to a gaurd as DOO specifically refers to the operational mode of the train and not the commercial operation.

 

[Monty]

DOO is perfectly safe so long as nothing goes wrong, it's like swimming with sharks. Totally safe so long as you don't get eaten. It's always good to have a second member of staff who knows what he is doing when it comes to an emergency (emergency protection etc) if the driver was to be 'unavailable'.

 

[ainsworth74]

Out of curiosity how many accidents have happened where the driver was 'unavailable' and the severity of the accident has not been sufficient to block the other lines (blocked in from a signalling vantage point) and therefore the guard performing emergency protection was vital? Actually, just simplify that by saying when was the last time that the guard was the only member of train crew that was able/required to perform emergency protection?

 

[ChristopherJ]

DOO is perfectly safe. I always take the mentality that if I am attacked on a train what is the guard going to do to protect me? Jump in front of me when a bullet is fired in my direction? Obviously not. The best they can do is call the police. I, or other passengers, can do that ourselves.

Already mentioned is that guards are not very effective if you're being attacked in coach 1 but the guard is locked up safe and sound in the back cab in coach 8 - take note SWT; I've never seen a one of your guards walk through a train! On 455s they stay tucked away in the middle cabs and on 444/450s they barricade themselves in their TM offices - separated from the outside world by a panel of glass. They always announce "I'm located in coach x if you need assistance" - no... If assistance is need you go to your passengers, not the other way round!

I agree with guards to be supplied on intercity and express trains because they are essentially a premium service and are required for the long durations of which the train is in motion without stops to carry out on board revenue protection but I cannot justify guards on suburban and local trains which have high frequency stops every few minutes where revenue protection or assistance can board the train at a moments notice.

If I had my way, I would implement a rule that services that operate between stations for durations of over 20mins or more require guards as mandatory, in essence this is already the case with several TOCs anyway - Chiltern, FGW and Greater Anglia to name a few - whom have guards on intercity services but are DOO on suburban services.

 

[WelshBluebird]

DOO is perfectly safe, I always take the mentality that if I am attacked on a train what is the guard going to do to protect me? Jump in front of me when a bullet is fired in my direction? Obviously not. The best they can do is call the police. I, or other passengers, can do that ourselves.

Except that is not the main reason for having a guard.

A guard can perform duties such as laying detonators if required (and if the driver is either incapacitated or busy) amongst other safety critical operations, can notice if a passenger requires an ambulance (and can arrange for that ambulance to meet the train at the next station), has a better ability to see the whole train when dispatching a service, can stop anti social behaviour (you say "what can a guard do", but it is surprising how soft some "hard" acting people become once they come across authority), can help passengers sort out connections etc in the case of a delay, etc etc.

Now yes, a "ticket inspector" or whatever could take the guards job in some of those circumstances, but not all.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Out of interest what is the difference between a guard and ticket collector?

A guard is responsible for pretty much anything to do with the passengers, they do the doors, check tickets, sort out reservations, fix things in the coaches, help passengers during disruption.

A ticket collecter just does tickets, the driver does the doors.

That seems like a rather biased description, as you list a ton of customer service things in the guards duties and then imply that a ticket collector would be unable to do those duties.

A guard has a clearly defined role in the rulebook. That role is to do with the dispatch of trains from stations and carrying out emergency protection if needed. Train preparation and disposal are guards duties on certain types of stock too (loco hauled stuff being the obvious example) but there is nothing stopping a ticket collector doing customer service duties in their day to day role.

I'm not pro DOO by any stretch of the imagination, I'll go on record now and say I hope it isnt extended on any line beyond where it is currently implemented but I don't think posting one sided arguments on message boards and passing them off as balanced answers is a good thing to do either.

 

[wigwamman]

I'm not sure about carrying out protection but I have read rssb reports and statistics that indicate a far higher percentage of accidents at the platform train interface on DOO trains than on trains with gaurds,chiltern have gaurds north of banbury due to it being absoloute block the other operators probabbly have them for the same reason,the standards for having a gaurd are nothing to do with passengers security as a security officer could provide that at a cheaper rate,gaurds main functions are safe operation of doors ecspecially on platforms with curvatures and protection on absoloute block lines the secondry function is for commercial reasons

 

[Cherry_Picker]

chiltern have gaurds north of banbury due to it being absoloute block the other operators probabbly have them for the same reason

It's absolute block through Banbury station, but that is not the reason why DOO was never extended north of Banbury as far as I am aware. The reason was that Cab Secure Radio never went beyond Banbury South box. GSM-R is now fully fitted along the route (is it fully fitted nationally yet?) so one of the reasons against DOO north of Banbury has been removed. Chiltern have been investing heavily in loco hauled stock though, so the guards wont be going anywhere for quite some time.

 

[wigwamman]

Sorry cherry picker I thought it was ab all way north of banbury,glad to hear chilterns staff jobs are asfe for a while though

 

[ChristopherJ]

In regards to guards hiding away in back cabs and other not publicly accessible places, perhaps the TOCs should install trains with those electronic tag devices which security staff have use to prove they have undertaken their rounds? London Overground station and Travel Safe staff have to use them once at hourly intervals at stations to prove they've walked the station and not just sat in their offices all day.

Perhaps it should become mandatory that a guard has to prove they've walked from one end of the train to the other once every 20 mins by tapping a tag at each end of the train?

 

[68000]

GSM-R is now fully fitted along the route (is it fully fitted nationally yet?) .

About 2 years away for national coverage (minus the Scottish RETB routes)

 

[Daz28]

No more doo, cutting jobs costs lives.

Are there any examples of accidents where DOO was cited as a contributory factor in causing loss of life?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What was the first DOO service on what is now National Rail?

 

[68000]

What was the first DOO service on what is now National Rail?

Glasgow Central - Gourock / Wemyss Bay July 1986 when the Strathclyde Manning Agreement came in. CSR was developed and trialled in Glasgow at the same time. Scotrail were then left with the prototype CSR equipment as the system was refined for rollout in England. CSR was finally switched off in July 2011 and the DOO trains are using GSM-R as the sole radio system.

 

[Flamingo]

In regards to guards hiding away in back cabs and other not publicly accessible places, perhaps the TOCs should install trains with those electronic tag devices which security staff have use to prove they have undertaken their rounds? London Overground station and Travel Safe staff have to use them once at hourly intervals at stations to prove they've walked the station and not just sat in their offices all day.

Perhaps it should become mandatory that a guard has to prove they've walked from one end of the train to the other once every 20 mins by tapping a tag at each end of the train?

You can say "Thank you" to them every time they walk past...

 

[Central Trains]

I cannot see any justification for non-commercial guards on SWT in the next franchise, commercial guards will probably remain but will unlikely to be responsible for opening train doors although closing doors may still be part of the job (like EMT and SN). Removing commercial guards entirely would be a little foolish given the reductions seen recently in ticket office, barrier and revenue staff.

EMT - I presume you mean Meridians? Can anyone shed any light on door protocol there please? Is it similiar to Voyagers?

 

[wigwamman]

I find the idea of being tagged while I work revolting.What would that kind of rule do for staff morale,at Northern performance is looked at twice a year so management know who does and doesn't patrol trains as it shows in revenue takings.
Will gsm-r make the gaurds role obsolete in regards absoloute block working.

 

[wbbminerals]

I take it in many cases, if DOO is introduced, it will just be used to downgrade the guard's job to being a ticket collector which therefore would reduce their pay?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Yep. Nobody is arguing DOO is better, but nobody can deny that DOO is cheaper.

 

[Mojo]

I doubt that the agreements would allow for compulsory redundancies, or cuts to pay. When Guards were removed from the Underground, many became (what are now known as) Customer Service Assistants and a separate band was introduced to cater for the ex-Guards.

If anything, I imagine that a generous package of voluntary redundancy would be introduced, with jobs being opened up in other roles for the former guards to occupy, maintaining their salary.

 

[tbtc]

I take it in many cases, if DOO is introduced, it will just be used to downgrade the guard's job to being a ticket collector which therefore would reduce their pay?

Basically, yeah.

As things stand you need someone to drive the train (driverless trains may work on the DLR, but I can't see them on "Network Rail" lines any time soon), you need someone to check tickets and you need one of those two to deal with opening the doors/ train safety etc.

The question is who should do those "extra" bits.

With advances in technology its a lot easier for the driver to operate the doors - should we use improved technology to save money? It's a tricky thing to debate, because it's people's jobs.

DOO clearly works okay - I'm not aware of any "incidents" with it that wouldn't have happened otherwise - but despite the improvements in what *can* work, we've seen the big growth of DOO under BR replaced by a trickle since privatisation (really just a few small sections, like Bathgate to Edinburgh, not the big areas that BR did) - presumably because no TOC has the will for a fight with the Unions. As I've said before, Privatisation has been brilliant for the Unions because its much easier to hold private companies over a barrel (faced with a drop in their revenue) than it is to hold a nationalised company over a barrel (because BR had no incentive to "surrender").

Impossible to debate without certain trolls getting involved though!

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I doubt that the agreements would allow for compulsory redundancies, or cuts to pay. When Guards were removed from the Underground, many became (what are now known as) Customer Service Assistants and a separate band was introduced to cater for the ex-Guards.

If anything, I imagine that a generous package of voluntary redundancy would be introduced, with jobs being opened up in other roles for the former guards to occupy, maintaining their salary.

Yeah, they will get looked after but that is just the TOC playing the long game. DOO isnt necessarily introduced to bring in huge savings in years 1-5 but once those ex guards start to leave the company (retirement, jobs elsewhere etc) and they arent replaced then operating costs will fall dramatically.

 

[wbbminerals]

I guess the long term nature of the benefits of DOO are also something that would put off a TOC from persuing it, as who is to say they will have the franchise that far down the line.

 

[the sniper]

DOO clearly works okay - I'm not aware of any "incidents" with it that wouldn't have happened otherwise - but despite the improvements in what *can* work, we've seen the big growth of DOO under BR replaced by a trickle since privatisation (really just a few small sections, like Bathgate to Edinburgh, not the big areas that BR did) - presumably because no TOC has the will for a fight with the Unions. As I've said before, Privatisation has been brilliant for the Unions because its much easier to hold private companies over a barrel (faced with a drop in their revenue) than it is to hold a nationalised company over a barrel (because BR had no incentive to "surrender").

In my opinion this is the key to answering the OP's question. My answer is that the Guard grade will largely remain unchanged in most parts of the country, at least for as long as the current form of railway franchising exists. As tbtc points out, with the relative shortness of franchises, rocking the boat of the unions just isn't worth it financially, as either the costs won't have chance to be recouped during the course of the franchise or the financial benefits would be negligible and outweighed by the negative publicity/disruption. It's much easier to just shuffle the deck chairs about, give everything a fresh lick of paint (which IMO, is the best thing about privatisation) and ride out the course of the franchise.

For the reason above, I hope that the current system exists for the next 30 or so years, or long enough to see me through to retirement anyway! I don't really understand why the RMT and ASLEF chase renationalisation tbh, except for the benefits to the travelling public.