Should we have DOO?

[Olaf]

You wouldn't dream of a ship or commercial aircraft operating with only one member of staff on board and yet supporters of DOO would encourage a train capable of carrying up to 1000 passengers at the highest speeds any land vehicle is permitted to operate to only have one member of staff!

What exactly is the justification for a driver or guard to be onboard based on the number of passengers a train is carrying?

Regarding lower paid staff - if a lower paid grade were introduced what should their working hours and salary be ? How would the same high standards maintained by guards now be kept up ? And how would the potential animosity between the new grade working longer hours for lower pay and highly paid drivers working less hours be kept under control?

I question your statement of the high level of service provided by the guard; this is largely a myth.

The Customer Service staff would on a grade inline with the on-platform Customer Service staff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No it isn't.

Yes it is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Olaf suggests we should have a race to the bottom, perhaps he has a happy well paid job and suggests that no one should be able to live above the poverty line.

He also thinks that you will get the same character of person if you pay minimum wage to someone who is paid a lot more. I will tell you pay me minimum wage you will get minimum service.

The goal is to eliminate cost, improve ontime service, and improve customer service, not a race to teh bottom. With properly trained staff in the Customer Service role the service will be significantly improved. As in other industries, the elimination of synical old-timers makes vast improvement in teh customer experience.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Enjoy your fantasy. We're talking about a real railway and, unfortunately, you've just shown up your total lack of understanding about how it works and how it's funded.

I'll just reset the Troll Alarm now.

O L Leigh

I think it is not me that is living in fantasy world; part of the problem in the UK is that it has been slow to adopt new technologies and methodologies in the rail industry, and blinkered by sentimentality. The technology has existed for sometime, and the opportunity exists to move forward with this with the aim of of providing a step improvement in the performance of the railways in the UK.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And pray who decides what you get paid? So what would you pay for say a Driver working on a DOO train and a Driver working with a Guard? What would you pay a ticket collector? what would you pay a dispatcher?

Gladly it wont be you with any luck, as you would want people to volunteer rather then get paid.

Customer Service staff would get paid in the same bands as elsewhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In practice that cost saving just will not happen as you are imagining it will because traincrew numbers will not be cut in half you will still need to have TE's which will need to be paid something unless you want to loose revenue

And because ASLEF will not agree to drivers taking on extra responsibility for free .

Sorry, but the difference is sufficient for a significant reduction in teh overall staff costs.

 

[Captain Chaos]

The goal is to eliminate cost, improve ontime service, and improve customer service, not a race to teh bottom. With properly trained staff in the Customer Service role the service will be significantly improved. As in other industries, the elimination of synical old-timers makes vast improvement in teh customer experience.

So, reducing salaries is not a race to the bottom then? Reducing salaries is going to encourage staff to provide signifcantly better customer service and feel immense pride in their work and feel hugely valued by their company when told they must take a 50% cut and take on extra work becuase they have reduced the number staff because they wanted to spend less money? Lol! What a load of nonsense! Cutting costs in delivering customer service results in a reduction, not an increase, in service quality. You get what you pay for.

I mean, look at the outsourcing of call centres, in order to reduce costs and increase service quality. That worked well, didn't it? Or how about those amazing, super wonderful supermarket self-checkout tills. You know, those ones that when introduced the staff were told they would still have the same number of checkout staff. Now my local Tesco's has barely half. Just more machines. Then you have to stand there like a moron because the stupid thing doesn't know you've put something in the bag.

Or how about the carrier bags that have been reduced in thickness to reduce costs and be better for the environment. They work well, don't they. Or how about everytime I walk into my bank I get constantly harrassed by someone to use the machine, it's quicker! All because the bank wants to cut staff costs.

You're right, it's not a race to the bottom. It's a race to the unemployment office for a large section of society because smartphones and computers are being programmed to do what we do. This isn't a problem that affects the service industry. It affects a broad range of industries. These "innovative" technologies are meant to enhance our lives. There is nothing "innovative" about putting people out of work.

 

[Olaf]

And just exactly how much would it cost to cover every single entrance / exit, at every single station in the country with s/c tech? Additionally, how to you mointor people attempting to jump any barriers, any CCTV solution for example would add further cost & would still require manning. Of course some person at the far end of a CCTV network isn't going to be able to do much other than alert the local authorities by which time the fare-dodger may be well on their way.

There is a capital investment necessary for teh equipment, but that is already covered in a number of cases. There would be a reduction in operational costs, and more efficient use of head-count. There will still be a proport of revenue lost, but that happens even with guard checks, and there are progressive means of dealling with the loss.

Is it? How many businesses are key, nay essential to this country's economy? Without the rail network, the roads would be further jammed up, more people would be stuck in them getting to work, and more money would be lost.

It is a business just as are any of the others such as power supply, air travel, food distribution etc. The case for public ownership is overstated.

Again, exactly how much would it cost to implement across the country?

I mentioned earlier in the thread about how the guard on a train I was on that was involved in a fatal collision took responsibility for the situation when the driver was unable to. So let's take this to the extreme, and imagine a similar situation somewhere remote, say Blea Moor, where a DOO is involved & the driver incapacitated. How would you manage such a scenario, especially if the on-board passengers were struggling to get a mobile signal to alert the authorities? Basically there would be nobody to control the passengers, and stop them potentially trying to de-train & putting themselves at risk on a line that other services may be using & are unaware of a developing problem ahead of them.

Onboard Customer Service staff would be trained to handle passenger safety in such situations; cf. airline cabin crew, cruise liner crew etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The railway is largely loss making and is subsidised by government. The government currently expects the railways to be making efforts to reduce costs. If staffing costs go down, fares will not be reduced as the train company will be expected to reduce its subsidy first.

In the London and South East a number of the franchises are now revenue positive. It is mainly provincial services that are making the big losses. Yes part of the nett cost reductions would go back to the Governemnt to reduce the tax payers contribution, but it it would still feed through to nett reductions or freezing of fares.

 

[Captain Chaos]

It is a business just as are any of the others such as power supply, air travel, food distribution etc. The case for public ownership is overstated.

Completely disagree. The true profit in a railway system comes from the ability to safely and efficiently transport people from A to B and the effect that has on the countries GDP, growth and output. The same as the road network. The road network has thousands of people required to maintain it, etc. It is not required to make any profit because the profit is realised in the effect such a network has on a nations ability to function. The rail network is no different. It is, what you might call, a loss leader. The benefits far outweigh the costs of running it.

 

[Olaf]

Since, predictably, one or two members seem determined to push for the race to the bottom, seeking to pursue automation and destaffing to its fullest extent, and in one case proposing to force staff onto a lower rate of pay whilst still retaining their safety-critical status and responsibilities for the state of the line, I thought I'd share this link. In summary, the author (who would appear to have far more business experience and success than even 'Olaf') makes a very strong case against the race to the bottom - yes, there might be short term savings, but ultimately it'll be a bad thing for all of us. The principle of what he says would appear to be applicable here, even if the finer detail isn't.

That is just a poitical blog, and somewht blinkered at that, so you can pretty much take it that you are getting a skewed view of reality.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Tch tch, and you a scientist. You're missing out a couple of very important points here:

1. An airplane is up in midair, often over ocean, and it can't just stop. Nor can the passengers evacuate midair. It doesn't call at stations, that have safety critical staff, en-route. It's so far different from trains that to use it as a comparator is laughable.

As in the railways, onboard crew come into play once the vehicle has come to a halt.

 

[Tomnick]

So now we're proposing that we get rid of the guard and instead employ a 'customer service' bod with safety responsibility, if I've read the above properly. If that's the case, presumably the train can't run without such a bod on-board - so even the Strathclyde arrangement wouldn't work. How can you justify a greatly reduced salary for the latter job when it sounds almost identical to the present role (and responsibilities) of guards currently?

My earlier link might have been to a political blog, but it makes a lot of sense to me and appears to be well supported by evidence. The continuing quest for automation and destaffing, and reducing as many roles as possible to low-paid and unskilled jobs, surely only leads to an economy where very few can afford to spend beyond what's absolutely necessary - the savings might be good news for the richer minority (senior management, big shareholders and so on) in the short term, but I can't see how it's sustainable in the longer term.

 

[Olaf]

and how long do you imagine the passengers will be breaking open the doors and de-training themselves? before the signaller can protect the line?

That rarely happens within the time period you have suggested. Incidents where passengers have exited onto the line have typically been in cases were the train has been stationary for an excessive period, with reports of poor communication from the crew on the current status.

 

[Captain Chaos]

That rarely happens within the time period you have suggested. Incidents where passengers have exited onto the line have typically been in cases were the train has been stationary for an excessive period, with reports of poor communication from the crew on the current status.

Some of the high profile reported ones that may be the case. I can think of cases where people have started de-training after 10 minutes. It doesn't get reported, mostly because it isn't into a major London Termini. Just becuase it doesn't get reported about doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen.

 

[Olaf]

By whom? In the case of a dead/injured.incapacitated driver and the only other rail employee being (no offence, but I'm exaggerating for the benefit of the hard-of-thinking) a glorified clippy, who is going to radio the signaller, providing accurate details such as the location of the train relative to numbered signals?
.

The train control systems would handle the alerting so there is no need for the involvemnt of onboard crew for teh communication.

 

[Captain Chaos]

The train control systems would handle the alerting so there is no need for the involvemnt of onboard crew for teh communication.

Is this amazing system going to report the number of casualties on board, request assistance from anyone on-board who may be able to assist (not all emergencies are a crash, there was case not long ago of the driver who had a heart attack in the middle of nowhere on FTPE, the guard saved his life) amongst other things? All it can say is something has happened. That's about it. In an emergency situation, information is not only key, it's vital.

 

[Olaf]

DOO may have been in use for 30 years but as of yet nobody has manage to provide a rebuttal to the argument that DOO is not going to save any money . If it is not going to save any money why are we going to lower safety standards whilst spending the same amount ? Seeems like a massive step backwards to me

There is no need for a rebuttle because the premise is incorrect.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is, with GSM-R - see my posts above. It's no use if there's no-one who's able to respond though, nor is it going to get other trains stopped quickly.

The train management system will also be communicating over GSM-R and reporting on vehicle status.

 

[Tomnick]

That rarely happens within the time period you have suggested. Incidents where passengers have exited onto the line have typically been in cases were the train has been stationary for an excessive period, with reports of poor communication from the crew on the current status.

So, a situation not unlike a failed train then, in terms of the timescales involved. Whilst the driver is waiting at the assistance protection (and away from the train for at least half an hour, possibly rather more), the passengers are left with no communication (other than perhaps via GSM-R and the PA, which is less likely to reassure them than a real person regularly patrolling the train). Sounds very much like the sort of situation where folk will end up detraining themselves.

 

[Olaf]

Political ideology - a Conservative administration is going to tend to prioritise cost-saving on a subsidised system over job losses or safety concerns.

All administrations will have to work to reduce rail industry operational costs irrespective of which parties they are formed by, and no matter what pre-election campaign promises they make.

Saftey matters are the responsibility of the industry; - ministers do not have involvement with the execution of the standards, and to suggest otherwise is misleading.

 

[Tomnick]

There is no need for a rebuttle because the premise is incorrect.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The train management system will also be communicating over GSM-R and reporting on vehicle status.

I don't know whether any of the current train management systems even report (within the train, not to anywhere else) whether any part of the train's derailed or not, let alone pass information over GSM-R regarding the state of other lines which may be obstructed. It's not even possible to establish the exact position of a train at the moment.

 

[Olaf]

Two members of staff on a train is always going to be more safe than one - in terms of unease felt by passengers about antisocial behaviour and fare dodgers, the despatch of the train, and in the event of an incident of any magnitude, somebody who can deal with passengers and perhaps stop them trying to exit the train while the driver deals with the line and the train itself can only be an improvement on what we have now. DOO was accepted in less risk-averse times; and I don't think that it would have been innovated in today's climate. I have spoken to a regular SWT passenger who didn't know DOO existed at all and thought that others might feel less safe travelling by train as a result. As for the suggestion that DOO equipment failure doesn't cause cancellations - of course it does - all that the public will hear is that there is a technical fault or a broken down train rather than the exact nature of the problem.

I would be happy to pass on driver and guard if it meant that the service was as reliable as the DLR.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would you prefer a service to cease because of high cost or continue as DOO?

Don't forget the safest train service is the service that does not exist

... or that minimises the human factor in its operation.

 

[northwichcat]

You wouldn't dream of a ship or commercial aircraft operating with only one member of staff on board and yet supporters of DOO would encourage a train capable of carrying up to 1000 passengers at the highest speeds any land vehicle is permitted to operate to only have one member of staff!

Well the aircraft crew have to:
* Do a full safety demonstration prior to take off.
* Ensure everyone is seated with seat belts fastened for take-off and landing and other times the captain deems it necessary.
* Ensure the doors are closed properly.
* Ensure all cabin baggage is safely secured in the overheads lockers or below seats for take-off/landing.
* Ensure everyone boarding is getting on the plane they've booked to travel on. If a passenger for Edinburgh boarded a flight to Amman at Heathrow without a valid passport the airline would be in serious trouble.
* In an emergency provide necessary assistance.
* Provide other services while the plane is in motion.

I think train guards do less than half of those, while the captain on a plane can't make an emergency stop and come in to the cabin and assist.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Olaf, what do you do for a living? Your desire for as little human involvement in the operation of the railway is astonishing. You sound like you may have an ulterior motive. Are you a TOC MD or do you work for the DFT?

On a related note, what sort of jobs would you not want to see automated? What percentage of jobs would you like to be removed as a whole? Not just railway. Everything. Automation is big dark cloud on the horizon for society. It seems that those who are left with work will have to take a pay cut and "be grateful". This vision of Utopia not only saddens me, it scares me. Technology was supposed to improve our lives. It's starting to do the opposite. Meanwhile, everyone is told to just shut up, accept it and move on. Not all progress is good. The ramifications on society as a whole from automation are huge. The only people who seem to shout about how great it is seems to be those unaffected (as of yet), government and businesses.

The future looks terrible if you want to work. Without work, how will people live?

 

[Olaf]

Can I just say - last night there are a lot of undesirables travelling on my train. The hot weather seems to have brought them out - they travel ticketless to the seaside, get drunk and kick off on the way back. I'm so glad a guard was on board who could at least stop things from going completely out of control. I'm an ex-conductor myself and dealing with these incidents was undoubtedly the worst part of the job.

Is this not a good enough reason to convince you all that DOO is a bad thing ?

I've never seen a member of staff intervene in an incident; all they do, in my experiences, is halt the train and call the transport police. I am assuming this arises as part of their work practices to safeguard their well-being which is fair enough, but it does not add to any confidence that I or others would get any assistance from the train crew in such an event; something I think is an urban myth. On at least one occasion it was a call from a passenger to 999 that got a response to an on-train incident.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I've never seen a member of staff intervene in an incident; all they do, in my experiences, is halt the train and call the transport police. I am assuming this arises as part of their work practices to safeguard their well-being which is fair enough, but it does not add to any confidence that I or others would get any assistance from the train crew in such an event; something I think is an urban myth. On at least one occasion it was a call from a passenger to 999 that got a response to an on-train incident.

Of course we call the police! We will if it requires it! I have intervened in things on many occasions and NOT needed to involve the police. I have letters on my file from passengers congratulating me for my efforts! What a load of nonsense. You are just using your own experiences to distort what others do. To say that we don't intervene is an insult.

 

[Olaf]

I didn't say that the decision is not the DfT's.

I imagine that the stats, if not already collated by some body or other, are held by each TOC at their traincrew depots or performance management teams in the form of internal safety records. ...

Statutary data is held by the RSSB; there is some useful information here:
http://www.rssb.co.uk/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/risk-analysis/tools-and-resources
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What I would postulate is that the DfT are not interested in this information and are making this decision based solely on a cost basis. They have committed themselves to a path that they cannot now get themselves off. They are driven to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and I imagine that they are quite content to allow for an erosion of safety standards and an increased level of risk to passengers. I would argue that this is not an acceptable position from which to make a decision like this. The recently published RSSB report suggests to me that actually we're getting things about right just as they are now.

That is a ridiculous assertion, and ignores statutory responsibilities.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... I'm not sure on what basis you're convinced that DOO is an adequately safe method of working; presumably just the lack of any rail crash news on the 10 o'clock news. That is not a very good source and, anecdotal or not, people who work on the railways are very aware of what is going on around them. Anyone who has to sit through the Red series of videos on their regular safety brief will know that there are incidents happening all the time. I know about the times when an 8 car train has stopped at the 4 car board and the doors been released (I've even seen the CCTV footage of passengers holding the doors open and jumping down onto the track). I know about the driver who stopped at a red signal and, on impulse, released the doors even though there was no platform and the train was on a high brick viaduct. I know about the driver who released the doors on the wrong side of the train. I know about all of these incidents and more that have happened on DOO lines even though they have not made the news. May I ask, what do you know?

... all of which are due to human error.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What has shocked me with this thread is two things. Firstly the absolute willingness of some people on here to disregard the livelihoods of the thousands of guards in the UK on the off-chance tickets might be cheaper (which they simply wont) and then the happiness of some others to be part of and privvy to a good old fashioned race to the bottom.

It is not about the livelyhoods of the guards, I'm sure they will find suitable employment elsewhere, what does concern is that passengers and tax payers are having to subsidise a role that is now of quetionable value at best.

 

[Captain Chaos]

It is not about the livelyhoods of the guards, I'm sure they will find suitable employment elsewhere, what does concern is that passengers and tax payers are having to subsidise a role that is now of quetionable value at best.

I have questionable value to the passengers? Why thanks. Not only do you insult my intelligence by saying we don't get involved in incidents you then say we are of "questionable value". On train staff are of questionable value to passengers and the tax payers. There you have it folks, next time you have questions, need advice or want some assistance you won't get them from on train staff. They were removed for having "questionable value". They were instead replaced by a computer. I'm sure they will be great help calming down a group of drunks or requesting a connection get held, or arranging assistance for unbooked passenger etc.

 

[Olaf]

I don't think anyone, at least anyone who knows what they're on about, could convincingly argue that DOO is safer than conventional operation ...

By the same arguement the reverse would also be true.

DOO is specificed for safe operation of the railway, and any gaps or deficiencies are analysied and corrected by the same practices as used for other modes of operation.

 

[Captain Chaos]

By the same arguement the reverse would also be true.

DOO is specificed for safe operation of the railway, and any gaps or deficiencies are analysied and corrected by the same practices as used for other modes of operation.

So, why is it required that the Guard observe the train until it has left the platform, yet the driver isn't required to do so? Why is it considered unsafe for a Guard not to observe, but under DOO conditions it is allowed for the driver not to observe? Why is this gap not corrected?

 

[Olaf]

If the DFT where completely devoted to reducing the costly railway perhaps getting rid of the generous compensation clauses which compensate TOC's for less than expected revenue should be done away with as well ? .

They could also abolish the right to strike in the rail industry which I am sure will be very welcome, That would reduce loses to the economy, more so than changes to the above compensation clauses.

The DFT is just following the lead from the McNulty report where it has been said that DOO is a method that could reduce the subsidy costs associated with the railway . Given that Mr McNulty's area of expertise is aviation and not the railway I think he has overlooked a number of points which I have outlined multiple times yet you havent addressed . This will ultimately mean that it will not result in the cost saving that the DFT envisages .

McNulty's assessment is valid and is based on the airline industry which works to higher safety standards than any railway I am aware of.

30 years experience might have proved it "safe" but we cannot gleam anything from the cost saving to be had from it for 30 years of operation because it was introduced in BR days not the privatized rail industry we now have .

The cost savings are going to be more significant; the industry is now much better managed than under BR, and we have the benefit of modern technology.

Besides the DFT wanting to reduce subsidy is not going to save anything from their spending straight away as they are going to have to spend on investment on the infrastructure and rolling stock in the north to make DOO work here .

That is capital investment which is fine as it will attract investors, while at the same time it eliminates operational costs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What we're looking at here is not a shortcoming in the operation of the railways but a determination by the current administration to repeat the mistakes of the past as previously committed by the British Railways Board, Dr Richard Beeching and the government of John Major. It won't work and has the risk of damaging the industry further because it will undermine public confidence.

It does work. What's more, it is falsehoods being spread by political factions that damage teh industry.

The railways have never been profitable.

The railways were profitable before they were nationalised, profitability disappeared due to excessive construction undermining returns.

Lets not forget that the impetus driving these changes are nothing to do with fostering or nurturing the railways, nothing to do with securing the future of threatened services, nothing about improving the lot of the passenger or providing better value ...

That is just political dogma, urban myth, and disinformation.

 

[LateThanNever]

The railways were profitable before they were nationalised, profitability disappeared due to excessive construction undermining returns.

So really it was more a question of they had to be nationalised because they were not profitable!

 

[Muzer]

The railways were profitable before they were nationalised, profitability disappeared due to excessive construction undermining returns.

If by "before they were nationalised" you mean "before the second world war" (unless you seriously want to suggest that they were profitable in the few yeras between WWII and nationalisation), then yes. That's quite some time ago. Times have changed - the railways have never been profitable since the rise of the car. That's not to say they aren't important, however.

 

[NSEFAN]

Have we even decided if DOO reduces costs? There seemed to be doubt about the savings a few posts back...

 

[muz379]

They could also abolish the right to strike in the rail industry which I am sure will be very welcome, That would reduce loses to the economy, more so than changes to the above compensation clauses.




McNulty's assessment is valid and is based on the airline industry which works to higher safety standards than any railway I am aware of.




The cost savings are going to be more significant; the industry is now much better managed than under BR, and we have the benefit of modern technology.




That is capital investment which is fine as it will attract investors, while at the same time it eliminates operational costs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So you really think that they should abolish the right to strike in the rail industry ?
I thought the rail industry was just a business just like power supply ,food distribution or aviation . so surely the employees of that business just like the employees of any other business should have the right to withdraw their labour as a last resort in any sort of dispute . To argue otherwise sends us back to the dark ages when even being involved with a union in any was was unlawful .

If Mcnulty has based his assessment off experience in aviation he has become very muddled in making that assessment because in the very safe world of aviation there is specified a crew to passenger ratio ,he hasn't made that assessment with his aviation safety hat on he has made it with his satisfying the audience of the report hat on .To be honest trying to argue that Mcnulty and his experience of aviation makes him the perfect candidate to write a report into the rail industry is preposterous

That better management (lol) and use of technology is going to make no difference to the cost savings of implementing DOO , As I have now said countless times
1)Drivers want more salary
2)You want the grade that replaces guards to retain all competencies but dispatch -still going to get a decent salary then
3)Dispatchers - more of them and they will want more salary

Management & Technology doesn't come into it , basic maths does .
Like it or not the unions in the rail industry are strong and will get their members more/decent pay

As for capital investment in the infrastructure required to implement DOO good luck with that one


What you are saying is quite frankly ridiculous , lets get rid of workers right to strike , pay them all a pittance and expect a safe railway and high level of customer service at no expense to the tax payer

 

[Captain Chaos]

He will want whips and chains brought back next! To ensure we don't become unruly and make a stand. If we survive the shift, we get to rest with our other brethren in the workhouse, while the champagne Charlie's can be heard living it up on the proceeds of our labour. Welcome to modern Britian under Olaf!

 

[NSEFAN]

He will want whips and chains brought back next! To ensure we don't become unruly and make a stand. If we survive the shift, we get to rest with our other brethren in the workhouse, while the champagne Charlie's can be heard living it up on the proceeds of our labour. Welcome to modern Britian under Olaf!

Sounds similar to Victorian Britain, which was a time when the railways were profitable, were they not?