W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[Captain Chaos]

latest rumours suggests, which could make sense....


Class 16X units which will remain in LTV land will be fitted with body side camera a and in cab screens.

Class 16X units destine for West land will have cab controls removed and Guard operating panels installed.

NX

Not going to fly. That means an extension on to the Basingstoke, Marlow, Gatwick and North Cotswold routes.

It is true they are putting bodyside cameras on. But it's to ALL units.

 

[455driver]

Latest rumour however suggesting that Aslef have now laid their cards on the table... And the news allegedly is good, currently...

Here is hoping they have listened to the members and dont sell anyone out for a few quid!
We don't want a repeat of last time where a few quid extra for the drivers hung the guards out to dry!

 

[Rich McLean]

I know where the 16x info was taken from. It was posted as more as a possible scenario, rather than what is actually going to happen. Everyone is trying to piece the relevant info together to get an answer.

Also, why install bodyside camera' to all 16x units if the majority are going to be crewed? Also a reliable source has said for units heading west, Drivers door controls are set to be removed?

 

[Carlisle]

Not going to fly. That means an extension on to the Basingstoke,

The Basingstoke line was originally planned to have gone DOO anyway aound 1993 shortly after becoming part of Thanes & Chiltern division when Turbos replaced the long serving DEMUs but presumably privatisation plans changed priorities

 

[Goldfish62]

It is very different indeed. As I said above, the conditions on a Tube platform during rush hour would never be tolerated on the national network. Standards are very different.

In an interview in Rail the HMRI Chief Inspector is quoted as saying that the PTI on LUL is slightly safer than on the national network, despite the huge volumes of passengers and crowding it deals with.

This would suggest that standards are higher on LUL and, maybe, it would be LUL that wouldn't tolerate the conditions on the national network, not the other way around.

 

[Carlisle]

In an interview in Rail the HMRI Chief Inspector is quoted as saying that the PTI on LUL is slightly safer than on the national network, despite the huge volumes of passengers and crowding it deals with.

This would suggest that standards are higher on LUL and, maybe, it would be LUL that wouldn't tolerate the conditions on the national network, not the other way around.

whatever the actual stats, which are numerous, complex and can no doubt in many cases be spun to support either side of the argument , this dispute as others have pointed out now seems to be largely about managements right to manage v the potential ability of the combined unions to cause very severe future disruption if they fail to reach an agreement

 

[455driver]

In an interview in Rail the HMRI Chief Inspector is quoted as saying that the PTI on LUL is slightly safer than on the national network, despite the huge volumes of passengers and crowding it deals with.

This would suggest that standards are higher on LUL and, maybe, it would be LUL that wouldn't tolerate the conditions on the national network, not the other way around.

Or maybe its because most underground routes only have one or two types of stock running on them (so everything can be kept tight) where as on NR there can be 10 different types of stock passing through the stations (meaning clearances have to be more generous).

Or maybe your conspiracy sounds better! :roll:

 

[Goldfish62]

Or maybe its because most underground routes only have one or two types of stock running on them (so everything can be kept tight) where as on NR there can be 10 different types of stock passing through the stations (meaning clearances have to be more generous).

Or maybe your conspiracy sounds better! :roll:

What conspiracy? Or are you suggesting that the HMRI are in some pro-DOO conspiracy and are fabricating data?

Regarding clearances, presumably you have never been to Bank station on the Central line...

Before people start frothing too much, for the record I am anti-DOO/DCO on the IEPs and I support RMT in their campaign. I'm merely pointing out that any suggestion that safety on national rail is better than LUL is misplaced and not borne out by facts. The facts are that both are very safe railways.

 

[BestWestern]

In an interview in Rail the HMRI Chief Inspector is quoted as saying that the PTI on LUL is slightly safer than on the national network, despite the huge volumes of passengers and crowding it deals with.

This would suggest that standards are higher on LUL and, maybe, it would be LUL that wouldn't tolerate the conditions on the national network, not the other way around.

I would assume though that the figures relate only to data on actual incidents. How many people are thumped, whacked squeezed and bruised by closing Tube doors?! Many thousands each day I would think. The difference being that it's accepted. Accepted that doors will close on people, accepted that platforms will be rammed with passengers teetering on the edge, accepted that trains will arrive and depart under those conditions. LUL do very well to maintain the safety record they do under those conditions, but I maintain that such conditons are not deemed generally acceptable on heavy rail.

Maybe those figures suggest an argument that they should be....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

whatever the actual stats, which are numerous, complex and can no doubt in many cases be spun to support either side of the argument , this dispute as others have pointed out now seems to be largely about managements right to manage v the potential ability of the combined unions to cause very severe future disruption if they fail to reach an agreement

No, it really isn't. It is about members wishing to secure the future of their jobs, the only way to do so being to fight for the continued existance of their current role in it's present form. It really isn't some secret RMT crusade in which FGW Guards are the unwitting pawns, as much as some posters here would like to think it is. It is quite simply about ensuring that there remains an operational requirement to have a Guard on board the train; as opposed to them becoming a superfluous irrelevance which somebody just might decide in the future they no longer wish to employ.

It is very simple. I remain utterly baffled by those who pretend they cannot grasp the problem.

 

[455driver]

I remain utterly baffled by those who pretend they cannot grasp the problem.

They are believing all the stuff coming out of the FGW propaganda department!

for me its about keeping things as safe as possible and not settling for as safe as they decide they can afford, especially as I cannot see where any savings are coming from if they dont get rid of the guards!

 

[ComUtoR]

For me it is about providing what is best for the passenger/train/Driver. I don't believe another role can provide all three.

 

[cactustwirly]

They are believing all the stuff coming out of the FGW propaganda department!

for me its about keeping things as safe as possible and not settling for as safe as they decide they can afford

At the moment FGW are sounding quite reasonable, it's the RMT who are sounding like propaganda.

If we are going for as safe as possible, we should all wear Hazmat suits and run trains at 5 mph!

On a serious note, I believe the safest way of operation where the driver closes the doors under the instruction of the guard, therefore human error is less likely.

 

[43074]

On a serious note, I believe the safest way of operation where the driver closes the doors under the instruction of the guard, therefore human error is less likely.

How does it reduce the likelihood of human error?

Anything could happen in the 2 seconds it takes to give the driver 1-2 on the buzzer, surely the safest way is for the guard to open and close the doors?

 

[cactustwirly]

How does it reduce the likelihood of human error?

Anything could happen in the 2 seconds it takes to give the driver 1-2 on the buzzer, surely the safest way is for the guard to open and close the doors?

The Guard checks if it safe to close the doors, gives 2 on the buzzer. The driver then checks it's clear, if it is he/she closes the doors.
If the guard is mistaken the driver won't close the doors, until it is safe to do so.

 

[43074]

The Guard checks if it safe to close the doors, gives 2 on the buzzer. The driver then checks it's clear, if it is he/she closes the doors.
If the guard is mistaken the driver won't close the doors, until it is safe to do so.

Surely the guard is in the best position to check the platform-train interface though? If the section isn't clear the train doors shouldn't be closing anyway as that would be dispatching against a signal at danger.

 

[ComUtoR]

2 on the buzzer would be incorrect.

 

[Jonfun]

The Guard checks if it safe to close the doors, gives 2 on the buzzer. The driver then checks it's clear, if it is he/she closes the doors.
If the guard is mistaken the driver won't close the doors, until it is safe to do so.

With respect to the signal,yes, there would be an extra check. With respect to someone being trapped in a closing door, it's faster for the Guard to have control of reopening the doors than having to shout up the driver to.

 

[313103]

At the moment FGW are sounding quite reasonable, it's the RMT who are sounding like propaganda.

Please enlighten me on how FGW are sounding quite reasonable?

Because in my eyes if FGW are being reasonable they wouldn't be wanting to change the terms and conditions of Guards and Buffet Staff and wholesale changes to the Engineering grades. Unless i have missed something that FGW are proposing that is good!

What do you mean by its the RMT sounding like propaganda? Do you know something that i or many others dont?

 

[455driver]

The Guard checks if it safe to close the doors, gives 2 on the buzzer. The driver then checks it's clear, if it is he/she closes the doors.
If the guard is mistaken the driver won't close the doors, until it is safe to do so.

That isn't how it works on XC, the driver just hits the buttons and doesn't check anything, its solely the TMs responsibility to check!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Guard checks if it safe to close the doors, gives 2 on the buzzer. The driver then checks it's clear, if it is he/she closes the doors.
If the guard is mistaken the driver won't close the doors, until it is safe to do so.

And the guard has a meeting with his/her Manager!

Serious question, have you ever worked a passenger train?

 

[Robertj21a]

Despite all these pages of repetitive statements I still find it difficult to understand how some operators can run trains as DOO but it's not, apparently, possible on FGW.

 

[455driver]

Despite all these pages of repetitive statements I still find it difficult to understand how some operators can run trains as DOO but it's not, apparently, possible on FGW.

Try reading the thread, the different way that FGW want to run the IEPs is part of the issue as has been posted at least 10 times! :roll:

 

[Carlisle]

Despite all these pages of repetitive statements I still find it difficult to understand how some operators can run trains as DOO but it's not, apparently, possible on FGW.

It's perfectly possible , the first DOO train ran in 1983 or earlier if you include T&W metro or Victoria line , ever since then unions have been perfectly aware that changes would happen one day to people's job rolls , so I rather wish the RMT would negotiate from that reality rather than trying to pretend DOO has never existed

 

[Robertj21a]

Try reading the thread, the different way that FGW want to run the IEPs is part of the issue as has been posted at least 10 times! :roll:

I've been reading this thread many times, and for far too long......

At the end of the day, it's DOO - as already exists elsewhere......or it's not DOO. If it's supposed to be something different in FGW-land then it would be better if it was given a different acronym that made it more meaningful.

 

[plymothian]

It has been given a different name - DCO, which has just been made up - Driver Controlled Operation, which is DOO in all but an "O"!

The RMT has had to remain belligerent because they're not allowed to involve ASLEF, and any agreement with FGW would mean involving ASLEF. Until FGW approach ASLEF, the RMT is tied.

 

[notadriver]

I've heard a rumour that some drivers would go for DCO so long as a guard or train manager type person is guaranteed to be on board. Not good.

 

[FordFocus]

Despite all these pages of repetitive statements I still find it difficult to understand how some operators can run trains as DOO but it's not, apparently, possible on FGW.

Where does DOO work on Intercity trains?

 

[yorkie]

Where does DOO work on Intercity trains?

Oh, I see we're going round in circles again! We already had this discussion several posts ago, didn't we?

Southeastern High Speed 1 is DOO with a safety critical On Board Manager, and there are non-stop runs from London to cities like Cambridge (further than Reading), as well as examples abroad which may be beyond the scope of this discussion. However some people argue these don't 'count' because they weren't run by the Inter-City sector of BR (though Gatwick Express is an example which was), while others will say that's missing the point. We then get onto something else that's already been discussed, before arriving back onto the topic a again few dozen posts later, and we go round and round again.

 

[FordFocus]

You've proved my point, same questions on here been asked about why DOO works everywhere else (it doesn't IMHO). Circles. It's become boring.

 

[BestWestern]

At the moment FGW are sounding quite reasonable, it's the RMT who are sounding like propaganda.

If we are going for as safe as possible, we should all wear Hazmat suits and run trains at 5 mph!

On a serious note, I believe the safest way of operation where the driver closes the doors under the instruction of the guard, therefore human error is less likely.

I disagree. If a member of the public becomes trapped in the doors, for example, you'd prefer the guy seeing it happen to have the release buttons. It makes absolutely no practical sense at all for the closing of the doors to be split between one person stood on the platform, and another person pressing the buttons under the supervision of the first person...

As for propaganda; again, this is about safety, and about people trying to secure the future of their jobs. That's pretty black and white.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

On any routes anywhere where the equipment for ASDO is installed on both trains and platforms, will the doors be opened by the driver and then closed either by the guard or the guard giving the relevant buzzer code to the driver?