Driver Only Operation Since Privatisation

Status
Not open for further replies.

dmacw

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2009
Messages
126
I know some lines have been DOO for a while. But what lines have become DOO since privatisation?

Did some slam door lines become DOO after receiving new stock?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hello

Member
Joined
10 Jun 2008
Messages
181
most of the central south london work , out of victoria and london bridge and gatwick to bedford on the thameslink route, probably more than that i would imagine
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,939
Maangement are not qualified to operate trains any more so the fear of strikes has gone through the roof.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,737
Location
Mold, Clwyd
most of the central south london work , out of victoria and london bridge and gatwick to bedford on the thameslink route, probably more than that i would imagine

I think the following are also DOO:
GN suburban
GW 16x out of Paddington to Oxford/Bedwyn
possibly 332/360 Paddington to Heathrow
Chiltern 165/168 out of Marylebone to Banbury/Aylesbury (Thames/Chiltern were under the same management under BR)

The 317 fleet when new on St Pancras-Bedford (1981) was forced to park up idle for two years before the unions agreed to DOO.
DOO rollout seemed to stop when BR's South Western Lines, having installed all the fixed hardware required, gave up under union pressure.
I don't think there has been any extension of DOO under privatisation, though I expect it is implicit in Thameslink and Crossrail route plans (eg GE Metro).

The Group Standard for DOO dates from BR in 1993: http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...ation and Management/Other/GOOTS401 Iss 1.pdf
 

michael769

Established Member
Joined
9 Oct 2005
Messages
2,006
Maangement are not qualified to operate trains any more so the fear of strikes has gone through the roof.

I don't know. Scotrail managed to keep their services running when the RMT striked over the introduction of DOO on the new Airdrie to Bathgate service.

IIRC the RMT gave up on the issue after two mostly failed attempts to disrupt services in Scotland over the issue.
 

philjo

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2009
Messages
2,632
GN suburban became DOO sometime around 1987-88 I think - when the 317s replaced the slam door 312s (the 317s having come from the reopened Thameslink route which was now operated by the dual voltage 319s)
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
Edinburgh - Bathgate is probably the only one handed over to DOO since privatisation. The other lines in Scotland - Larkhall and Bathgate - Airdrie were both new lines.

Someone can correct me and add London Overground to the list, I am not sure if it happened or not.

As for other DOO most of the former network south east area is. SWT is the exception they even had the monitors installed. As you get further out on South Eastern the gaurds return.
 

notadriver

Established Member
Joined
1 Oct 2010
Messages
3,365
Edinburgh - Bathgate is probably the only one handed over to DOO since privatisation. The other lines in Scotland - Larkhall and Bathgate - Airdrie were both new lines.

Someone can correct me and add London Overground to the list, I am not sure if it happened or not.

As for other DOO most of the former network south east area is. SWT is the exception they even had the monitors installed. As you get further out on South Eastern the gaurds return.

London Overground still have guard operated routes. The North London line and the Barking to Gospel Oak line. The latter would need a lot of work to convert to DOO as class 172s aren't fitted with DOO cameras and there aren't any mirrors. I'm not sure what modifications the North London Line would need as much of the route has GSM-R or CSR coverage. The East London Line was opened as DOO.

Another route which is arguably DOO is the HS1 route which is interesting as the class 395s operate DOO(P) over non HS1 sections of lines where conventional trains must have a conductor.
 

313103

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2006
Messages
1,595
Most of the South East DOO services were done under BR. I was a victim of one of them having been made surplus to requirements at Marylebone (The Thames and Chiltern DOO scheme).

I was farmed out to Willesden (where i can still be found). I work on both the 172s and 378s on the NLL & WLL. I suppose the reason we havent been displaced yet is because of the Olympics and the 7/7 attacks. At the time of the 7/7 attacks the travelling public wanted to see more visable staff, now that viewpoint has changed i think mostly because of costs.

Nobody really knows what is going to happen to us in the long run, the current concession agreement expires in 2014, so i still have a job up to that point. There is also talk that the company are thinking of converting class 172s to Driver open, Guard close as per class 378 operation.

With reagard the extension of DOO the only lines that i can think off that have been done since privitisation is the London Tilbury & Southend now known as c2c, as mentioned the South Eastern HS services and those in Scotland.

DOO on London Overground is on the Watford to Euston DC lines converted to DOO in 1988. The former East London Line with the exception of Highbury & Islington to Shoreditch High Street operated over former DOO schemes the section of the former Metropolitan Line of the East London were converted by London Transport and the section south of New Cross Gate was done under BR. Highbury & Islington to Shoreditch High Street is the only new DOO section of operation.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,939
Oh yes they are. those who manage the competence of SC staff must be vocationally competent and be trained and assessed so to be

... Yes, but as I understand it you used to be able to have large numbers of staff trained to be drivers or guards banked in posistions where they would not have to do the job normally who could be tapped if need be.

Not just the immediate managers of the staff.
 

KA4C

Member
Joined
7 Mar 2012
Messages
403
... Yes, but as I understand it you used to be able to have large numbers of staff trained to be drivers or guards banked in posistions where they would not have to do the job normally who could be tapped if need be.

Not just the immediate managers of the staff.

Yes and maintaining their competence was expensive!
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,017
GN suburban became DOO sometime around 1987-88 I think - when the 317s replaced the slam door 312s (the 317s having come from the reopened Thameslink route which was now operated by the dual voltage 319s)
After the 313s were converted to DOO, they still required guards for the Moorgate-Finsbury Park section. I remember short-notice diversions to Kings Cross were regular due to 'unavailability of a guard'.

I can't remember how long this went on for; I assume that they required new equipment to be installed to permit DOO in the tunnels.
 
Joined
19 May 2010
Messages
461
Location
West Drayton
possibly 332/360 Paddington to Heathrow

Regarding these, drivers are in control of operating the doors. On the 360s drivers do this unaided between Ealing Broadway and Hayes & Harlington. On 332s and 360s at Paddington and Heathrow stations the driver closes the doors on the say-so of the dispatcher. Also all trains entering the tunnels at Heathrow have to have a second member of staff on the train for evacuation purposes. So is this really DOO as was originally intended?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
14,601
Regarding these, drivers are in control of operating the doors. On the 360s drivers do this unaided between Ealing Broadway and Hayes & Harlington. On 332s and 360s at Paddington and Heathrow stations the driver closes the doors on the say-so of the dispatcher. Also all trains entering the tunnels at Heathrow have to have a second member of staff on the train for evacuation purposes. So is this really DOO as was originally intended?

Sure is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top