NSEFAN
Established Member
Cost, presumably. That's the reason behind all job cuts.craigybagel said:
Last edited:
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion
- Thread starter 387star
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
To some degree yes, and also the train can run even if no Train Manager is available, it also potentially leaves the Train Manager able to concentrate more on revenue protection and customer service
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
My answer would be yes to all those, my local Tesco has already substancially removed checkout staff, and in view of the recent tragic crash over the alps maybe an automated plane is not a bad idea.
The fact is Technology and automation is likely to develop substancially over the next 20 years as has happened since the industrial revolution, and yes that will make people redundant and perhaps it may get to a level at some point in the future where society has to rethink the concept of work and how people earn a living, but unfortunately many Politicians, Industries and Unions are still in the 1950's in their concept of work, but that's another story
Last edited:
craigybagel
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 5,082
Except that the cost savings really aren't that much. And why should you care about costs anyway, do you really expect the passengers will see any of the money saved?
I agree. So, are you saying you feel safer on a Scotrail Strathcylde electric train with a member of staff patrolling the train constantly (and not allowed to hide in the cab), compared to a train with a Guard who remains in the back cab?
Captain Chaos
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 835
Ah yes! The automated checkouts. What was the staff told then? Don't worry, your jobs are perfectly safe... Now look how many staffed tills there are! I hate those things! It's like you're paying to do the work for them!
Isn't it also true that the amount of theft from shops has gone up purely because of these tills? I'm sure I read that somewhere. It's funny. You remove staff to cut costs and in the process allow dishonesty to proliferate. The amount of moaning shops do about shoplifting and yet they have a system in place that encourages it!
Isn't it also true that the amount of theft from shops has gone up purely because of these tills? I'm sure I read that somewhere. It's funny. You remove staff to cut costs and in the process allow dishonesty to proliferate. The amount of moaning shops do about shoplifting and yet they have a system in place that encourages it!
It would depend on what the result was. If by having more self scan checkouts it means that there are more staff in other areas of the store (i.e. no increase/decrease in total staff numbers) then I would have no problem with Tesco making those changes. In fact even a few less total staff but with more staff on the shop floor I would still be broadly in favour of. As it would mean that there would be more staff to assist me when I needed it around the store but I could get in, pay and get out without needing to interact with a person (possibly faster than using a normal till) when I didn't.
I think it depends how you look at it, if a few trains can run which otherwise would have been cancelled then that's less disruption to the passenger and cost to the TOC, If the train manager can provide better revenue protection by not having to attend the doors then that's also potentially a cost saving, if the train manager can provide better customer service instead of having to attend the doors then that may help to keep your existing customers and attract new ones.
Why should I care about costs, because I am a customer and Taxpayer.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
This certainly seems to me to be the case, even if the rule were "driver-operated doors" rather than "driver-only operation". An example of this is found in a few tram systems - Blackpool, Sheffield and Edinburgh use conductors, but the conductors don't open and close the doors, their primary responsibility is to the passengers.
Do you honestly think that the TOCs will keep the staff numbers the same?
They won't and gradually, over time more and more trains will be running without a TM on board, why pay a TM to work his rest day to cover a vacant job when you can run the train without them and save money/ make more profit.
As TMs retire/go on to other jobs do you think they will be replaced by somebody else becoming a TM in their place?
Remember a few years ago when it was highlighted that over 25% of Strathclyde services (the same Strathclyde being held up as a pinnacle of DOO operation) were running without TEs because they were deliberately not replacing staff as they left!
Last edited:
In my opinion it should be in the franchise commitment that they must adhere to the agreed staffing levels, and if not the TOC should pay a fine.
Of course. South West Trains guards walk up and down, regularly make announcements, say where they are located at that moment in time and where they will be (on train and platform) if needed. Many people don't notice a guard who only stays in the back cab, but I don't see that often, simply because every suburban in London apart from SWT is DOO.
I've never felt very unsafe on trains anywhere, however I know many people do and want to be able to talk to a member of staff if they feel the need to.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I agree. Such a fine should naturally be lower, but not *much* lower, than that for failing to operate the train. This would ensure minds are concentrated, as in Scotland, on ensuring it is *really* an exception, e.g. during serious disruption where it's better to have a train than no train. The kind of situation where it isn't unknown for fGW to put a Turbo out instead of an HST, for instance (or SBB one of their DOO hauled spare rakes).
As for safety, DOO is used widely without significant incident. As trains are very safe anyway, I am happy that DOO is adequately safe in and of itself. Indeed, in some situations it may actually be safer, e.g. that a driver can see the side of the train at the point he starts out, whereas a guard on a train without droplights at the door being used cannot see for several seconds between pushing "local close" and giving the driver two bells/buzzers to start.
I agree, too. The worrying aspect for me is the clause about trains being able to operate without a TM. while it's obviously better for a train to run than to be cancelled, I completely understand the fears that this could lead to cutting back on numbers or eliminating the grade completely by stealth.
My own view is that it is very positive to have someone on board who can act as a Team Leader, who can take control if necessary and organise customer hosts or whatever other staff on board should the need arise.
If there was a franchise commitment to retain TM's with financial penalties if a train runs without one, it would go some way to alleviating these concerns, at least for me.
My own view is that it is very positive to have someone on board who can act as a Team Leader, who can take control if necessary and organise customer hosts or whatever other staff on board should the need arise.
If there was a franchise commitment to retain TM's with financial penalties if a train runs without one, it would go some way to alleviating these concerns, at least for me.
None (HS1 excepted) but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, at the moment a high proportion of 125mph stock still has slam doors making it impractical anyway.
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
you are wasting your time - the experts know best. The guard should be eliminated, if only to ensure another section of society doesn't have better pay and conditions than the experts section of society!
Nice idea but it wont happen
I disagree - It is much safer for a guard to have a drop light window so he can observe the train leave the station. The driver can see little backwards once he is past the DDO monitor
ac6000cw
Established Member
Depends on your definition of 'long-distance', but as others have pointed out, the Southeastern Javelins are DOO plus a Train Manager, and run up to 140 mph.
I didn't say that I thought that TOC's would keep staff levels the same, nor did I say that they would cut them. I was stating that if an organisation moved staff from where as a customer I felt that they were not as helpful to me as they could be elsewhere to provide better customer support where it was more useful then that would be something I (and others) may prefer. In my example it was in reference to a non TOC example in response to a post asking if I would support the removal of staff from such an organisation.
With regards to TOC's are guards more useful to customers hiding away in the rear cab or in the passenger areas? I would argue that most customers would prefer to have a visible staff presence.
Have TOC's learnt that cheapest isn't always best? I don't know, but I would hope that they could have learnt from the banks who now mostly have UK call centres again because those who kept theirs also kept customers, as customer service is important to a lot of people.
Are DOO trains inherently more dangerous that a driver and a guard? I would suggest that there isn't a lot in it, unless someone can provide evidence otherwise. Although it depends on where the guard is in the train and whether there are any other staff on board other than the driver.
Are TOC's likely to use this as a way of reducing their costs? Yes, although given the public's desire to see staff perhaps not as much of a cost saving as it could be. Also, given staff on trains act as a revenue protection feature (i.e. if you know the guard always sits in the back cab or only briefly visits the rear portion of the train, if at all, before having to dash back to deal with doors then there is the risk that some people will take advantage of that) especially on services which call at lightly staffed and/or ungated stations.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The railway does not exist to provide employment. The employment occurs as a beneficial side effect of what it is there for - the transport of passengers and freight.
To decide to retain guards for customer service purposes is a good reason. To decide to retain them for safety purposes is a good reason. To decide to retain them for political ends IMO is not - or not without a similar burden being imposed on all areas of all industries, or at least all subsidised industries.
The fines for not providing a guard? It's exactly how the Strathclyde manning agreement mentioned upthread works, I understand.
Yes, that is safest. But then the guard cannot viably do revenue on anything other than a 2-car set, because he can only dispatch from the back cab where such a droplight is provided. Passenger doors on modern stock do not have droplights for the rather more significant safety reason of passengers getting their heads knocked off and/or trapped when the door opens.
You could I suppose provide droplights opened with a T-key as I think is the case on the Class 442. However you'd have to retrofit that to all modern stock for that argument to stand.
As it is, on those grounds specifically, a DOO dispatch with the driver able to see right up to the point he starts the train moving is safer than a guard dispatch from an intermediate door where there is a period of around 5 seconds when the train has not yet started moving (the time between the local door closing and the driver applying power) - exactly the period when someone is most likely to run up to the train, start stabbing at door buttons - or fall under it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think it would change the staff requirement. For instance, a team of 3 relatively cheap security guards, even if without railway skills, may be of more use on a late-night Saturday express out of a big city than a diminutive guard sitting alone in the rear cab, scared to venture out. Whereas on a route with a lot of tourists, you might want to provide a couple of helpful, enthusiastic conductors to sell tickets and provide assistance as well as point out stuff to look at out of the window.
(At this point I probably shouldn't, but will, mention the DB rural guards who used to flog coffee, and the Prignitzer Eisenbahnen drivers who used to flog choccy bars as well!
)
Last edited:
[
] ... so SWT services (which are TOC's who still have guards on every service) may as well go over to DOO as the guard generally dispatches from normal doors where there are no drop light windows so can not observe the train leaving the station. [/]Currently with guard operation though I as a safety critical , PTS trained and route learned guard can decide to evacuate the train if I think that it is necessary . That leaves the driver to get on with protection/speaking to the signaler and summoning assistance or if the worst happens it means that if the driver is incapacitated there is still someone there capable of taking charge of the situation . Having people trained to "assist" is going to be dangerous if they are then having to take the lead because the driver is unavailable . Or there is a fire in the middle of the train so the passengers and staff are split . do you really think it is safe having someone be responsible for the safety of passengers on and about the line in an emergency situation if that person has received no PTS training , and has no clue where they are because there is no long a requirement for route learning ?
Speaking as a guard now if I am still in this role when DOO comes about and I become a "revenue person" I wont be taking any responsibility for anybody during an emergency evacuation unless I have received the necessary training and possess the necessary route knowledge to safely put that training into practice .
Being shown how to use a TCOC and how to open the doors in an emergency means nothing if you are not trained in how to be safe once you have left the train , and you dont know how to be safe once you have left the train if you have no route knowledge so dont know about specific risks in any given location .
Exactly this
The only way TOC's can make the finances of DOO work is by running some trains without a second member of staff . If all trains have two members of crew on board just as they currently do but with a shift in responsibilities that's not going to be any cheaper than things currently are .
Someone earlier mentioned how stagecoach have never been enthusiastic about introducing DOO . Its no doubt because they realize that all that will happen if it is successfully implemented is a reduction in subsidy from the government because the guards will now supposedly be collecting a lot more revenue which offsets this subsidy . Stagecoach have probably realized its a lot easier to rely on government subsidy than trying to make disenfranchised former guards collect more revenue in their "exciting" new role .
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Cheaper maybe not, but personally I think driver-released doors, as already used on many UK trains where guards are present (all Voyagers, for a start) are certainly a benefit in terms of what the guard can effectively do without having to rush to/from the door panels, and not keeping passengers waiting to alight. That, even if the cost is the same as now, is IMO a good thing, certainly on those lines where all platforms are long enough.
You could achieve the same benefit by fitting more door control panels at intermediate doors (certainly would help with the stock I work) And wouldn't have to compromise on safety .
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Except it would (if the stock you work has droplights in the cab), because those doors won't have droplights.
... so you are saying that SWT's guards are acting in an unsafe way as the rarely go to the cabs where there are droplights to dispatch trains. Using that logic SWT's may as well go to being DOO.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
"Unsafe" is relative. For me, full DOO or regular operation with a guard are both safe enough - both are vastly safer than travel by road, for instance.
But to me it is certainly *less* safe to dispatch from a position where you cannot see the train for a period of several seconds than a position where you can see it right up until the point it moves, and even safer to dispatch it from a position where you can watch it all the way out of the platform, and even more so if there's a passcom or brake handle to hand so if you did see something go wrong you could stop it straight away.
Were we in mainland Europe (other than Switzerland, which has a *very* questionable pseudo-DOO dispatch procedure on IC trains) we'd give two bells with the local door still open and watch the train out of the platform before closing it. A droplight achieves that without the risk of falling out so is better - but isn't available at passenger doors other than Mk3 hauled stock and 442s.
Last edited:
Whatever ones views about DOO on SWT are, in 1998 it did seem a rather short sighted and pathetic decision by them to rip out brand new and expensively installed DOO equipment from their stations less than a year after they fitted it ,whilst Stagecoach might have achieved some great things in the transport industry ,this was not their finest hour
Last edited:
Bodyside cameras are not compatible with Platform Edge Doors, that will be used in the tunnel sections of Crossrail. Platform mounted cameras but broadcasting pictures into the cab (Track To Train), as already used on LU lines, is much safer and offers improved visibility of the Platform Train Interface.
- Status