W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[Domh245]

I've already mentioned the "issue" of wrong side door releases, which really assumes that people are morons. The driver has just driven along the full length of the platform and has, hopefully, been aware of the platform as they drive past it. Most train drivers have a memory greater than that of a goldfish, and should remember where the platform is.

But memory isn't even important here. I am no expert, but surely the procedure will be quite clear - the driver should stop and secure the train. Then, (s)he should check that the train is aligned with the platform by using the cameras or mirrors provided. Only when (s)he is satisfied that it is safe to do so can (s)he open the doors. Should they adhere to this, issues such as wrong side door openings and stop-shorts should be no more common than with a guard. If they don't adhere to this procedure, then (like a guard who made the same mistake) they would be negligent in their duty.

Besides, even if the driver did open the doors on the wrong side, us passengers aren't going to simply going to open them walk onto the other track like Lemmings.

The problem is usually when drivers are approaching red signals, or similar situations, at which points they concentrate (rightly so) on the road ahead, and not on the passengers on the platform.

As for your suggestion for checking that the train is correctly positioned and observing the side the platform is on in mirrors or cameras, that only works when the mirrors/cameras are platform mounted, as bodyside cameras do not function until the doors are opened. This is usually mitigated either by CSDE/ASDO systems where possible, or more often with a sign placed where the driver will see it saying "open doors on other side" or similar, as seen at the bottom of this railsigns

You also seem to have a confidence in passengers that quite a few others don't! Some passengers (especially when they have buried their head in a mobile device) do go into auto-pilot, and at stations where a train may be routed into a different platform most days, then there is a real danger of someone on autopilot and not looking out of the window to mash a door open button that has been accidentally released and walk out onto the track.

 

[LowLevel]

Having seen passengers doing everything from walking off a platform because they're engrossed in what they're doing, to falling down the stairs and smashing themselves to pieces because they're late but still stopped to get a coffee to trying to climb out of a window on a moving train to throwing a mate off the platform into a pile of **** in the 4 ft and busting his ankle 'because I thought it would be funny' I'm afraid the safest thing to do is afford them no consideration of sensibility or intelligence is to treat them all like babies and work upwards when they display some confidence and sensibility. Particularly when a man in a wig is liable to declare you responsible for this walking amoeba's idiocy.

Something done on autopilot like walking out of a door that normally only releases at a platform is certainly up there with the high risks in my view.

 

[muz379]

I've already mentioned the "issue" of wrong side door releases, which really assumes that people are morons. The driver has just driven along the full length of the platform and has, hopefully, been aware of the platform as they drive past it. Most train drivers have a memory greater than that of a goldfish, and should remember where the platform is.

But memory isn't even important here. I am no expert, but surely the procedure will be quite clear - the driver should stop and secure the train. Then, (s)he should check that the train is aligned with the platform by using the cameras or mirrors provided. Only when (s)he is satisfied that it is safe to do so can (s)he open the doors. Should they adhere to this, issues such as wrong side door openings and stop-shorts should be no more common than with a guard. If they don't adhere to this procedure, then (like a guard who made the same mistake) they would be negligent in their duty.

Besides, even if the driver did open the doors on the wrong side, us passengers aren't going to simply going to open them walk onto the other track like Lemmings.

Just to address this again because you seem so hell bent on putting words in peoples mouths .

I was not, nor am I ,nor would I suggest that drivers are morons and that every time they stop a train in a platform they would release the doors on the wrong side .

The driver might have just driven the train along the length of the platform but if they are coming to a stand at a red , or if they are pulling into a permissive platform and something else in in the platform they might quite rightly be concentrating on that and not the platform or anything else for that matter .

I would hope if the doors where released passengers wouldn't fall out like lemmings but tbh I dont have much faith in the ability of many passengers , far too many people these days walk around playing with their smartphones completely oblivious to their surroundings . Not to mention the obvious dangers of wrong side releases if you have a passenger with visual impairment waiting to alight .

We will have to agree to disagree on that one.

So you really think that we are going to see trains running closer to their timetabled time with drivers controlling doors ? .

As has just been discussed above if drivers are going to be required to check that the train is fully accommodated in the platform on the screens/mirrors that would not save any time on releasing the doors vs a guard who is doing their job properly . And if the procedure for closing is going to require checks to be made you wont save much time . All you will save is the 3 seconds that it takes the guard to give the rts . But if the guard is not on the platform supervising boarding then you are going to waste more than 3 seconds especially when it is busy . And assuming that some stations will then have to revert to using CD and RA indicators you might actually loose that 3 seconds .

 

[FordFocus]

true, but it can happen with a Guard too. And it does. Do you have any verified stats to say it's more common on DOO services? Either way these incidents are rare.

Who's more likely to cock up.. a Driver who is concentrating on a red signal, distracted from AWS horns, possible WSP activity in a confined cab with minimal side views of the platform, particularly if you can't see the platform because you've pulled so far to the end to accommodate your train.. Think.. 220s, 800s and these new Thameslink units.

Or a bloke who is stood next to a door with a window looking at the platform who can then step out once the train has stopped, check the train is in the platform and then release the doors?

I'll ask around for some stats but I doubt they are in the public domain for commercial sensitive reasons. The Daily Mail would have a field day if they had TOC statistics on who had the worse safety record on the network

P.S. You never answered my previous question that I've asked twice after I politely answered yours.

 

[Carlisle]

B

Who's more likely to cock up.. a Driver who is concentrating on a red signal, distracted from AWS horns, possible WSP activity in a confined cab with minimal side views of the platform, particularly if you can't see the platform because you've pulled so far to the end to accommodate your train.. Think.. 220s, 800s and these new Thameslink units.

Or a bloke who is stood next to a door with a window looking at the platform

An earlier post described the technology that aims to prevent wrong side door release by drivers on London Underground,another explains an SWT system being installed to aid their guards on correct side door release, dont these developments suggest both methods of operation can be prone to the occasional mistake

 

[Dieseldriver]

I've already mentioned the "issue" of wrong side door releases, which really assumes that people are morons. The driver has just driven along the full length of the platform and has, hopefully, been aware of the platform as they drive past it. Most train drivers have a memory greater than that of a goldfish, and should remember where the platform is.

But memory isn't even important here. I am no expert, but surely the procedure will be quite clear - the driver should stop and secure the train. Then, (s)he should check that the train is aligned with the platform by using the cameras or mirrors provided. Only when (s)he is satisfied that it is safe to do so can (s)he open the doors. Should they adhere to this, issues such as wrong side door openings and stop-shorts should be no more common than with a guard. If they don't adhere to this procedure, then (like a guard who made the same mistake) they would be negligent in their duty.

Besides, even if the driver did open the doors on the wrong side, us passengers aren't going to simply going to open them walk onto the other track like Lemmings.

This post makes it plainly evident that you have no idea what you were talking about. Believe it or not, keeping a clean record as a driver is a massive challenge. Incidents happen as we are human beings who have to concentrate on a (sometimes) very monotonous task whilst feeling fatigued or nearing the end of a stint of dead earlies on a crap diagram for example. When you sit in your comfy chair at home writing posts on this forum on threads that you are clearly in no position to be writing, how many times have you made a spelling mistake, or written the wrong thing? All too easy but at least you can delete it and no-one is any the wiser, we as train drivers do not have that luxury in our safety critical, responsible roles. I suggest next time limit yourself to commenting on threads you can actually have some valuable input on.

 

[NSEFAN]

Believe it or not, keeping a clean record as a driver is a massive challenge. Incidents happen as we are human beings who have to concentrate on a (sometimes) very monotonous task whilst feeling fatigued or nearing the end of a stint of dead earlies on a crap diagram for example.

To really put the cat amongst the pigeons, surely we should be advocating for GOO (Guard only operation). Most of the problems discussed so far seem to be concerned with driver fatigue and monotonous tasks, both of which a machine won't have problems with. If the actual driving of the train and stopping in the right place is the most prone to human error, rather than dispatch, then surely this should be automated first?

 

[yorkie]

To really put the cat amongst the pigeons, surely we should be advocating for GOO (Guard only operation). Most of the problems discussed so far seem to be concerned with driver fatigue and monotonous tasks, both of which a machine won't have problems with. If the actual driving of the train and stopping in the right place is the most prone to human error, rather than dispatch, then surely this should be automated first?

For new, closed systems, yes. For the FGW network that is not practicable in the foreseeable future. Maybe in a few decades! Let's keep this thread on-topic. We have had previous discussions about driverless trains, there are many issues on a complex network. If anyone has anything to add on that that hasn't been said before, we could have that discussion in a new thread.

 

[hassaanhc]

Having seen passengers doing everything from walking off a platform because they're engrossed in what they're doing, to falling down the stairs and smashing themselves to pieces because they're late but still stopped to get a coffee to trying to climb out of a window on a moving train to throwing a mate off the platform into a pile of **** in the 4 ft and busting his ankle 'because I thought it would be funny' I'm afraid the safest thing to do is afford them no consideration of sensibility or intelligence is to treat them all like babies and work upwards when they display some confidence and sensibility. Particularly when a man in a wig is liable to declare you responsible for this walking amoeba's idiocy.

Something done on autopilot like walking out of a door that normally only releases at a platform is certainly up there with the high risks in my view.

(My bold) I would never have believed that if I hadn't seen someone almost walk off the end at London Bridge! Narrowly stopped by a nearby member of staff

There is also the risk of someone leaning on or playing with a door button and end up opening it when released somewhere that it shouldn't

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is also the risk of someone leaning on or playing with a door button and end up opening it when released somewhere that it shouldn't

I've done that on a German train, which was the point I realised that UIC door blocking released both sides. Good job I wasn't leaning on it.

 

[Clip]

(My bold) I would never have believed that if I hadn't seen someone almost walk off the end at London Bridge! Narrowly stopped by a nearby member of staff

There is also the risk of someone leaning on or playing with a door button and end up opening it when released somewhere that it shouldn't

ere was a story this week in the papers with video of a woman doing just that turns out she thought the train that was on the opposite platform was hers and she dropped like a ton of bricks onto the track.

 

[martynbristow]

I think you need to clearly isolate the issues which are the problem:
Driver multi-tasking potentially could be an issue, however this can be mitigated with doors locked using GPS, beacons or platform detectors of whatever nature.
The issue with dispatch I think would be considerably better suited to a dispatcher would can prevent people interacting with the train for the dispatch, I've seen a few occasions where passengers on the platform can get close to train after its been dispatched or isn't stopping.
As a customer I would expect more staff to be equally distributed through services allowing for doubling or tripling up on busy services. From my experience some people lock themselves away on busy services leaving us to sweat in the tin can and when the fights break out.
Could there not be a service level agreement agreed to protect passenger interests if the this is the problem?
So IF they are allowed to run trains without a core trained employee on board they could only do it for a set percentage of journeys.

 

[Flamingo]

Can somebody please explain why it is acceptable to run any long-distance train with only a driver on-board? Either every train needs somebody in the passenger area trained in safety procedures, or no train does. I'm not including Customer Hosts or Revenue staff, as they are not (currently) trained to the required standard.

So many people posting on this thread seem to have all the answers, but this, to my mind, is the key question, and is the elephant in the room that nobody apart from rail-staff is addressing.

 

[Jonfun]

Just an aside, what training do FGW's onboard staff (eg Customer Hosts and Revenue) actually receive? I get the impression from your posts that they have significantly less training than other TOCs provide their onboard staff with.

 

[FGWman]

Can somebody please explain why it is acceptable to run any long-distance train with only a driver on-board? Either every train needs somebody in the passenger area trained in safety procedures, or no train does.
.

Buts that it. There is no requirement for any train to have a second member of staff on board. Take London to Bristol and London to Kings Lynn. Both similar journey time. One has a second member of staff one does not. This is just a progression that has been going on since 1983 when DOO first came in on the Bedford to St Pancras route

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can somebody please explain why it is acceptable to run any long-distance train with only a driver on-board? Either every train needs somebody in the passenger area trained in safety procedures, or no train does.

If that's the case then no train does, as there are DOO services already operating in the UK. I suspect that isn't the conclusion you were wanting, but if it isn't true, then all the unions should immediately commence industrial action, refusing to work DOO trains as unsafe.

There are solid customer service reasons for having a second member of staff, however, and it can't be denied that having them there is safer - but that's not an absolute thing.

 

[LateThanNever]

Can somebody please explain why it is acceptable to run any long-distance train with only a driver on-board? Either every train needs somebody in the passenger area trained in safety procedures, or no train does. I'm not including Customer Hosts or Revenue staff, as they are not (currently) trained to the required standard.

So many people posting on this thread seem to have all the answers, but this, to my mind, is the key question, and is the elephant in the room that nobody apart from rail-staff is addressing.

I would say it isn't acceptable to run any long-distance train with only a driver on-board. But by 'rail staff' you are presumably not including your own management?
I have just returned from the specacle of 5 staff inspecting tickets on the footbridge at Newton Abbot, a busy junction in past times but hardly so today, and where, judging by the hilarity, most of the work was in gossiping amoungst themselves. Meanwhile a further three staff were chatting in the station office and then there was the surreal sight of a despatcher despatching in all formality a single coach 'train' to Paignton. Meanwhile all trains I travelled on had standing passengers and the guard had difficulty in collecting fares and could not properly inspect tickets owing to lack of time.
It would seem that there are the staff, but the management have no clue how to use them effectively or even sufficiently flexibly.
Looks too as tho' your customer hosts - whatever they are (doesn't that include all rail staff?) and revenue staff need additional training, which surely can't be that difficult.

 

[PaxmanValenta]

I think its going down a dangerous road (or track to pardon the pun!) the last thing we want is to see train drivers becoming like bus drivers post routemaster where they have to drive AND take fares, check tickets etc. Drivers should drive, conductors should deal with fares and tickets!

 

[martynbristow]

I think its going down a dangerous road (or track to pardon the pun!) the last thing we want is to see train drivers becoming like bus drivers post routemaster where they have to drive AND take fares, check tickets etc. Drivers should drive, conductors should deal with fares and tickets!

Are you implying buses in the modern world are dangerous.
Is DOO actually more dangerous.
You can state that it's posing an increased risk, but does this actually pose one.
How many incidents have the been involving long distance DOO? And compared to none DOO

 

[notadriver]

In terms of danger potential, trains and the environment they operate in are more hazardous than roads. A driver dealing with an emergency with the train or track can't deal with passengers at the same time who might become more anxious and ultimately try and leave the train. Helpful calming announcements made by a second member of (visible) staff may prevent this.

 

[muz379]

I think its going down a dangerous road (or track to pardon the pun!) the last thing we want is to see train drivers becoming like bus drivers post routemaster where they have to drive AND take fares, check tickets etc. Drivers should drive, conductors should deal with fares and tickets!

aside from the increased danger of working alone and the passengers being unsupervised there is no added danger that there should be a road traffic incident from having only a driver on buses because at least where I live assuming the bus driver is doing his job properly he only sells tickets and checks passes when the bus is stationary at a stop picking passengers up .

 

[yorkie]

I think its going down a dangerous road (or track to pardon the pun!) the last thing we want is to see train drivers becoming like bus drivers post routemaster where they have to drive AND take fares, check tickets etc. Drivers should drive, conductors should deal with fares and tickets!

Your post isn't an argument against DOO. Its an argument against one member of staff being on board. There are DOO trains with staff constantly patrolling the trains doing revenue. You talk about revenue but a Guard doesn't necessarily do revenue; some Guards are non commercial (eg SWT inner suburbans and no, the drivers don't - and won't - do fares) Your argument is therefore not a DOO one really.

 

[pompeyfan]

Yorkie, I think the main problem is that there is scope in the announcement for FGW to run services with just a driver, with no on board support. personally from the sounds of it the set up on voyagers or even 395s would be preferable compared to the possible scenario of only having the driver on board. Although personally I would prefer the current set up of driver doing the driving, and the guard doing the doors, revenue, and other customer service.

 

[D1009]

Yorkie, I think the main problem is that there is scope in the announcement for FGW to run services with just a driver, with no on board support.

There might be scope, but from the announcement they actually want to increase the amount of on board staff. The issue is that some people see the management on a mission to do away with as many jobs as possible, which is not the case. It does mean that some jobs have to change, and some people don't like it, even though there is no proposal to change anyone's pay or terms and conditions.

 

[martynbristow]

You can't remove the onboard staff on these trains and they'll be effectively the same as a Pendo. You can run them with less trained staff or occasionally without but passengers wouldn't be comfortable with no one!

 

[Carlisle]

I

Yorkie, I think the main problem is that there is scope in the announcement for FGW to run services with just a driver, with no on board support. personally from the sounds of it the set up on voyagers or even 395s would be preferable compared to the possible scenario of only having the driver on board. Although personally I would prefer the current set up of driver doing the driving, and the guard doing the doors, revenue, and other customer service.

Is it about absolute safety or a culture change? because in theory GTR or FGW could probably run IEPs DOO tomorrow from London to Kings Lynn or Banbury with no complaints from the unions as these routes have been DOO since around 1992,but they don't want to see it expanded further afield, so the next few months/years could be a difficult time for all parties concerned over this as up to now it's been mostly brushed under the carpet since privatisation

 

[notadriver]

Having roaming revenue staff that might be on trains isn't enough. They aren't trained to help the driver in an emergency.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Having roaming revenue staff that might be on trains isn't enough. They aren't trained to help the driver in an emergency.

Why don't all TOCs train ALL their onboard train staff to be able to assist the driver and passengers in an emergency no matter what their actual function onboard the train is eg buffet staff, cleaner, ticket inspector (non-guard)???

 

[The Ham]

Why don't all TOCs train ALL their onboard train staff to be able to assist the driver and passengers in an emergency no matter what their actual function onboard the train is eg buffet staff, cleaner, ticket inspector (non-guard)???

Training them to the full level of guards would be costly, however there is a lot that they could do to help. For instance having them be able to have the route knowledge required by drivers would be costly, however having them trained to make safety announcements wouldn't take much more training than teaching for buffet staff than they get for advertising that the buffet is open.

Having such staff as useful extra hands on trains with the potential for having over 600 passengers onboard could be very helpful if they are ever needed in the case of an incident.

 

[pompeyfan]

It's also the long term cost, are you telling me that if you were simply a cleaner (no disrespect intended) and your employer said 'oh by the way we're going to teach you safety critical information' that you wouldn't want an increase in wages? After all they're adding to your responsibility without increasing your remuneration.

Indeed I do understand the general idea is to increase staff, but if the 1 service that day that is DOO is involved in an incident there will be questions to be asked.

My other concern is that it's all well and good securing current terms and contracts, what about new starters in 5 years time, I'd be interested to see their contract. Will they get paid less for working SET's then units, after all they're a conductor on units, but non essential on express services.