W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[The Ham]

But Yorkie, although generally not unsafe.. would you like to be stuck on an IEP somewhere in Somerset, with no near station etc, etc. And no member of staff to assist you. Thats my point.

However the other side of it is that the likelihood of the driver being incapacitated on a train which should have had a TM and hasn't is VERY rare. It may also be that GW would try and switch a TM to such service (i.e. take one off a train heading to London at Reading to join a service which left London without a TM).

Although given that the frequency of trains through Somerset is low it is more likely that the stopped train would be noticed by signallers before another train passed by, meaning that it would be more safe for passengers to get out of the train there than between London & Reading (especially as it would be fairly easy for the passengers to get out on the side of the train where there were no tracks).

What happens to passengers on a train which have both the driver and guard incapacitated (i.e. both in the same coach which gets destroyed in a crash)? Should we have two guards which can not be within 2 coaches of each other to cover such an incident?

We do have to be careful not to eradicate guards, however we also have to be careful with the arguments about keeping them as otherwise you end up arguing that DOO may as well be done on some services which currently have guards or you end up arguing that we should have silly numbers of staff on the off chance that something may or may not happen.

 

[Fincra5]

However the other side of it is that the likelihood of the driver being incapacitated on a train which should have had a TM and hasn't is VERY rare. It may also be that GW would try and switch a TM to such service (i.e. take one off a train heading to London at Reading to join a service which left London without a TM).

Although given that the frequency of trains through Somerset is low it is more likely that the stopped train would be noticed by signallers before another train passed by, meaning that it would be more safe for passengers to get out of the train there than between London & Reading (especially as it would be fairly easy for the passengers to get out on the side of the train where there were no tracks).

What happens to passengers on a train which have both the driver and guard incapacitated (i.e. both in the same coach which gets destroyed in a crash)? Should we have two guards which can not be within 2 coaches of each other to cover such an incident?

We do have to be careful not to eradicate guards, however we also have to be careful with the arguments about keeping them as otherwise you end up arguing that DOO may as well be done on some services which currently have guards or you end up arguing that we should have silly numbers of staff on the off chance that something may or may not happen.

I wouldn't really say 2 members of PTS trained staff is a silly number..

If its all about Cost Saving they really should look more to management level.. there's so many middle managers. In my opinion there should be more onboard staff, these are what the people see, the pay passengers, they don't see the PA to the PA of the Head of PAs... (IMO)

Look at the incident at Farringdon where that 377 got stuck. Just a driver to deal with the passengers, who then tried to escape down the tunnel. That situation is too much for 1 member of staff to deal with.

I appreciate the idea of running it DOO to a location to pick up a member of staff but not the whole way... It happens on my network... but this seems more open to abuse by the TOC as the guard will have nothing to do with the doors by the sounds of it.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I wouldn't really say 2 members of PTS trained staff is a silly number..

If its all about Cost Saving they really should look more to management level.. there's so many middle managers. In my opinion there should be more onboard staff, these are what the people see, the pay passengers, they don't see the PA to the PA of the Head of PAs... (IMO)

Look at the incident at Farringdon where that 377 got stuck. Just a driver to deal with the passengers, who then tried to escape down the tunnel. That situation is too much for 1 member of staff to deal with.

I appreciate the idea of running it DOO to a location to pick up a member of staff but not the whole way... It happens on my network... but this seems more open to abuse by the TOC as the guard will have nothing to do with the doors by the sounds of it.

Let the Guard GUARD and the Driver DRIVE.

quite simple really

 

[FordFocus]

I've never understood why a lot of people on here want the only member of staff aboard a train with potentially over 700 people on a train that can travel at 125mph+ to be sat in the crumble zone at the front?

Does this somehow bring fares down overnight? What is it exactly that people have against the current arrangements of staffing!?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is it exactly that people have against the current arrangements of staffing!?

Well, other than that DOO seems to operate safely on many South East commuter routes, and thus is to me safe enough, I doubt I would suggest IC trains without a guard except where the service has ended up in a mess, in which case I'd rather a train without a guard than no train.

But in practice, the thing I genuinely think would be a real improvement on routes with many stops is driver-operated (or at least driver-released) doors, meaning the guard can concentrate on revenue and not have to keep running to the panel to let people off.

 

[yorkie]

I've never understood why a lot of people on here want the only member of staff aboard a train with potentially over 700 people on a train that can travel at 125mph+ to be sat in the crumble zone at the front?

Who has said they want there to be only one member of staff aboard a train?

Does this somehow bring fares down overnight?

No, but freeing up staff to do fares - which is what FGW are proposing - should increase revenue. Some think it's unsafe, some don't. We will never get consensus on that.

What is it exactly that people have against the current arrangements of staffing!?

Do you have anything against the current arrangements of staffing on the Scotrail Strathclyde electric trains, or the Southeastern high speed trains?

 

[Jonfun]

The Train Manager's job isn't to concentrate on revenue though. Taking away door duties won't suddenly make a TM more revenue focused. Unless you also take away their other duties (eg announcements, disabled pax assistance, setting up on-train displays, placing reservations, dealing with on train "issues", fixing or locking out faulty loos, etc) too, and then you have... an assistant ticket examiner, so you are running without a Train Manager!

 

[yorkie]

The Train Manager's job isn't to concentrate on revenue though. Taking away door duties won't suddenly make a TM more revenue focused. Unless you also take away their other duties (eg announcements, disabled pax assistance, setting up on-train displays, placing reservations, dealing with on train "issues", fixing or locking out faulty loos, etc) too, and then you have... an assistant ticket examiner, so you are running without a Train Manager!

Is that meant to be an argument against the Strathcylde electrics or Southeastern high speed services?

If so I suggest you take a trip on them, and compare it to SWT inner suburbans (with non-commercial Guards) or routes where Guards are rarely seen in the passenger saloons, and see what passengers prefer.

 

[Jonfun]

Neither. It was actually a reply to Neil which I started posting before you put your reply. But it could equally be seen as contesting your argument that freeing up staff to take fares will increase revenue.

If their job is just going to be to collect fares, you can't call them a Train Manager.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Train Manager's job isn't to concentrate on revenue though. Taking away door duties won't suddenly make a TM more revenue focused. Unless you also take away their other duties (eg announcements, disabled pax assistance, setting up on-train displays, placing reservations, dealing with on train "issues", fixing or locking out faulty loos, etc) too, and then you have... an assistant ticket examiner, so you are running without a Train Manager!

Erm...can't they also do those other jobs better (and also have a bit more time for revenue) if they aren't having to do the one job that is heavily time-constrained - the doors?

As for announcements and reservations placing - on modern stock both are largely automated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If their job is just going to be to collect fares, you can't call them a Train Manager.

You can call them what you like. Nonsensical job titles are common in most industries.

But in any case I did not propose removing their other duties, just the one that causes a huge amount of disruption to those duties, particularly on local stopping trains.

 

[muz379]

So, are we agreed that it's an acceptable solution, and not unsafe, for trains to be driver only operated (DOO) provbiding there's a member of staff on board to do customer service stuff and who is trained in evacuation procedures?

I know you don't think it's ideal, and I know you don't want it, and I understand and respect that, but we're agreed it's not unsafe, right?

Providing that the member of staff is trained in evacuation to the same level that a guard currently is and they have the same route and traction knowledge a guard currently has as well as having to be required for the train to run then yes that is a compromise that would be acceptable .

Its still a compromise on safety taking the doors away from the guard and letting the driver control them , would I go as far as saying unsafe , probably not . This is all of course assuming that station risk assessments are redone so that the provision of dispatchers can be changed taking into account the new arrangements for dispatch . The biggest thing that would feel unsafe for me would be a train without a second member of staff available to assist/control an evacuation .

But then when you provide more dispatchers , retain the same number of on train staff on the same pay and conditions and pay drivers more where are you going to be making better use of the finite amount of money we have ? If anything its going to cost more . Unless the trains are planned to run without that second member of staff which as we have agreed is an undesirable outcome .

As for the safety argument of not having that person for evacuations

if I as a guard took a drivers key and drove a train somewhere with passengers on board because a driver didnt turn in and by some miracle I got the train safely from A to B and didn't cause a major disaster that would only be through sheer luck and nobody(post BR) in their right mind would use that as an example to say look its safe for guards to drive the train if the driver doesn't turn up

Its the same with DOO on lines where the driver is the only person on board , the only reason there has not been a major incident is through sheer luck. Just as with me driving the train there is a potential for something to go very wrong .There are a number of reasons why guards are retained on a lot of services .





Just out of interest on intercity services with long stops between stations what is the issue with that guard doing the doors . Its not as if they are having to run off and do it every 3 or 4 minutes like on some commuter operations .

On commuter operations I can understand the concern with how much of the guards time is taken up doing the doors . Its not the actual carrying out of door duties that takes the most time away from revenue duties its the traveling to and from the rear of the train to carry them out .In Light of this it would in my opinion be a better use of the finite cash we have available to fit more door control panels so that the guard doesn't have to yo-yo in the train . This is going to take less capital investment as well as keep operating costs at their current level because there will be no need to pay the drivers extra money to carry out door duties . And is something that could be implemented immediately and would not lead to the disruptive industrial dispute that is going to take place if DOO is pushed ahead with .

Those that think stripping the guards of door duties completely would achieve more revenue increases than having more door panels need to consider that as a train approaches a station that person will have to suspend selling tickets and stand somewhere out of the way otherwise they will be blocking an aisle making it slower for passengers to alight and board the train at the station . so very little revenue duties can actually be completed whilst the train is approaching or at the station .

On commuter TOC's especially ones that run to unstaffed stations the exercise in giving control of the doors to the driver is probably actually going to lead to overall higher operating costs compared to the way the operation is currently run .

Whilst as you like to keep pointing out the method of operation is not unsafe it is certainly a safety compromise vs the traditional method of operation with the guard controlling the doors . Why should we pay more to operate things in a way that is less safe ?

 

[martynbristow]

Is that meant to be an argument against the Strathcylde electrics or Southeastern high speed services?

If so I suggest you take a trip on them, and compare it to SWT inner suburbans (with non-commercial Guards) or routes where Guards are rarely seen in the passenger saloons, and see what passengers prefer.

I think you captured the most important thing here.
Railways are a service industry providing a service to a customer, and therefore they are driven by customer demand.
It should be what the customer wants (within reason), if passengers want staff freed up to focus on customer facing issues then that's good.
Safety needs to be considered but through oversight and regulation. I've not been convinced on any safety argument as most arguments can be mitigated.

 

[Carlisle]

I'd be wary of ever using Irish Rail as an example of best practice mind......

A quick google search doesn't appear to show their recent safety record is any worse than ours but further back in history I may well tend to agree with you

 

[muz379]

I think you captured the most important thing here.
Railways are a service industry providing a service to a customer, and therefore they are driven by customer demand.
It should be what the customer wants (within reason), if passengers want staff freed up to focus on customer facing issues then that's good.
Safety needs to be considered but through oversight and regulation. I've not been convinced on any safety argument as most arguments can be mitigated.

ask passengers though and they think guards and drivers and anyone else who works on the railway should be on minimum wage working 80 hour weeks and enforced overtime on top of that .

These are the people who get angry and abuse the twitter staff on toc twitter feeds when points fail or when there are no trains at the weekend because of engineering work which is nothing to do with the TOC .

 

[craigybagel]

A quick google search doesn't appear to show their recent safety record is any worse than ours but further back in history I may well tend to agree with you

They've had a good record of late but they are also a much smaller network than here. I do have personal worries about the safety of the "mini-CTC" lines (80mph+ single lines with no cab signalling or any form of train stop equipment should a SPAD occur?), but then I guess that's an improvement over running DOO trains over token operated single lines, which used to be common. I can also remember commuting on push-pull sets with a loco and 6 mk3s. No way of contacting the driver or for him to get to the passengers on the train, but they were still completely DOO on suburban routes.

Meanwhile, stations like Nenagh (2/3, mostly empty trains per day) are still staffed?!

Most of the intercity services do run with a 2nd member of train crew on board though, even though door operation is done by the driver.

 

[FordFocus]

Who has said they want there to be only one member of staff aboard a train?

I get this as the general consensus of various posters as a 'lurker' of this forum through several DOO threads. Okay, it may not be everyone's opinion! If your after individual quotes in this topic, I'm sorry but I lack the time to trawl through pages and pages of posts.

No, but freeing up staff to do fares - which is what FGW are proposing - should increase revenue. Some think it's unsafe, some don't. We will never get consensus on that.

With the longer stops between stations, RPIs helping out and the increasing number of stations that are gated I'd place money that TMs are capable of gathering as much revenue as there is available, so why remove someone that can keep an eye on the platform (one of the most dangerous parts a railway). There is a lot more to whats going on around the platform than you can see through a small portion of an in-cab DOO monitor which has a narrow view of a doorway and nothing else. These cameras switch themselves off once the train has started rolling. So my only reasoning is FGW are now putting this "revenue" ahead of safety. Unacceptable but like you say, we'll never get a consensus on that.

TOCs spend what they require in a franchise agreement. Anything else is purely cosmetic and this additional revenue would simply go to the parent company, in this case First Group.

Do you have anything against the current arrangements of staffing on the Scotrail Strathclyde electric trains, or the Southeastern high speed trains?

You've answered my question with a question.

 

[D1009]

In my opinion there should be more onboard staff, these are what the people see, the pay passengers, they don't see the PA to the PA of the Head of PAs... (IMO)

I thought FGW's proposal for the SETs was to increase the number of onboard staff, and by removing some of the operational duties of the TM, this would enable him or her to be able to more effectively MANAGE the service to the customers. To suggest FGWs mission is for relentless staff cutting is not borne out by their track record.

 

[martynbristow]

ask passengers though and they think guards and drivers and anyone else who works on the railway should be on minimum wage working 80 hour weeks and enforced overtime on top of that .

These are the people who get angry and abuse the twitter staff on toc twitter feeds when points fail or when there are no trains at the weekend because of engineering work which is nothing to do with the TOC .

I'm sure this will be the minority of passengers!
I don't do such a thing and anyone with common sense understands this.
I will get honest on Twitter and pull people up when they deceive me or can't be bothered but this is fairly distributed to all industries.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Why remove someone that can keep an eye on the platform.
isn't that an argument for loosing guards in favour of dispatchers?
Guards can't see the train leaving the platform if the on the train :/

 

[muz379]

I'm sure this will be the minority's of passengers!
I don't do such a thing and anyone with common sense understands this.
I will get honest on Twitter and pull people up when they deceive me or can't be bothered but this is fairly distributed to all industries.

I think the majority of passengers thing that guards or "ticket men" are on minimum wage . I know when I left my previous job in retail as a manager to work as a guard a lot of people assumed it was a low paid job .

I also think a lot of members of the public think that a drivers £44k +is not deserved .

I know that it seems common sense to you but just by the mere fact that you are present on this forum shows that you have an interest and a level of knowledge higher than what majority of the public will have . Not slating the public for that many people just want a form of transport to get them to work and home on time . I dont know much about bus operations despite the fact that I used to commute on the bus .

 

[Monty]

Is that meant to be an argument against the Strathcylde electrics or Southeastern high speed services?

If so I suggest you take a trip on them, and compare it to SWT inner suburbans (with non-commercial Guards) or routes where Guards are rarely seen in the passenger saloons, and see what passengers prefer.

Yorkie, I try my best not to get sucked in to such petty bickering in threads such as these but your last comment (and the fact you have repeated it several times now like a broken record) has struck a nerve with me. For the most part of SWT's guards do their jobs very well which includes patrolling through the train's passenger saloons. SWT's management make a big issue of it's guards being visible to the public and we as a grade are closely monitored in this respect. Yes there are a few bad apples that could care less and give the grade a very bad name but I am concerned you are confusing your opinion with fact.

 

[yorkie]

I get this as the general consensus of various posters as a 'lurker' of this forum through several DOO threads. Okay, it may not be everyone's opinion! If your after individual quotes in this topic, I'm sorry but I lack the time to trawl through pages and pages of posts.

Ah, I see

You've answered my question with a question.

Should I take that as a no then? In which case, what's the problem?

I thought FGW's proposal for the SETs was to increase the number of onboard staff,...

Indeed it is.

Yorkie, I try my best not to get sucked in to such petty bickering in threads such as these but your last comment (and the fact you have repeated it several times now like a broken record) has struck a nerve with me. For the most part of SWT's guards do their jobs very well which includes patrolling through the train's passenger saloons. SWT's management make a big issue of it's guards being visible to the public and we as a grade are closely monitored in this respect. Yes there are a few bad apples that could care less and give the grade a very bad name but I am concerned you are confusing your opinion with fact.

It's my experience that SWT inner suburban services with non-commercial guards (not outer suburban services with commercial guards; that's a different kettle of fish entirely) are much less visible than the on-board staff on the Strathcylde network. Would it be helpful if I recorded some sort of log so there's some evidence to back up my experiences?

Note that I am not criticising Guards for not patrolling the train, I am just pointing out that some don't. I'm not suggesting it's unsafe if you don't see the Guard, and am not complaining about it.

 

[Carlisle]

Yorkie, I try my best not to get sucked in to such petty bickering in threads such as these but your last comment (and the fact you have repeated it several times now like a broken record) has struck a nerve with me. For the most part of SWT's guards do their jobs very well which includes patrolling through the train's passenger saloons. SWT's management make a big issue of it's guards being visible to the public and we as a grade are closely monitored in this respect. Yes there are a few bad apples that could care less and give the grade a very bad name but I am concerned you are confusing your opinion with fact.

I don't think it intended to be personal vendetta against hard working rail staff , it's just a fact that improved technology allows the job amongst many others in industriy to be done differently than say it was done 40 years ago and I can't see how things can really change back in the longer term but I may be wrong

 

[Domh245]

I thought FGW's proposal for the SETs was to increase the number of onboard staff, and by removing some of the operational duties of the TM, this would enable him or her to be able to more effectively MANAGE the service to the customers. To suggest FGWs mission is for relentless staff cutting is not borne out by their track record.

Nobody (as far as I'm aware) is disagreeing with the idea of Driver Only Dispatch (DOD) and letting the TMs carry out more of their passenger facing roles. What they are disagreeing with is the clause in the letter of 'we will diagram a TM to each service, but if he can't get to the service for whatever reason, we'll run it anyway' and the knock on implications for safety.

 

[313103]

I am sick to my back teeth of this Guards should always be in the passenger saloon collecting revenue and giving passengers information and those that don't should be got rid of.

Well let me tell you how it really works in this brief little episode:

In 2007 I was a Guard that was always in the back cab because the trains never had door panels other then in the cabs.
In 2008 with the introduction of new trains you would always find me inside the train giving passengers information and regular updates something that I actually didn't mind, the only exception was during extremely busy periods.
In 2013 I lost my job when the company decided to go ahead with Driver Only Operation.

I have since travelled on London Overground on numerous occasions and have never seen a member of staff on the train.

I have carried out the type of things that supporters of DOO have wanted it still didn't save my job or those 138 who lost there jobs though did it?

You see once the rot starts, it will continue until it ends with complete automation.

 

[yorkie]

You see once the rot starts, it will continue until it ends with complete automation.

There will always be at least one staff member on a train. The DLR is, when everything runs smoothly, completely automated, but there is still a member of staff on board.

I am sorry you lost your job, and of course that is going to be upsetting, and no-one wants to see that happen. Fortunately for FGW staff, FGW are not proposing making any staff redundant and are going to be employing additional staff, not less.

 

[sarahj]

I don't think it intended to be personal vendetta against hard working rail staff , it's just a fact that improved technology allows the job amongst many others in industriy to be done differently than say it was done 40 years ago and I can't see how things can really change back in the longer term but I may be wrong

You can have the very latest in tech, but it still does not cover the fact that the interaction between passengers on the platform and the train is quite dangerous.. Even if it not just to save their lives (which I have done on some occasions*), but also the fact that at times of disruption were are there to give advice. Without me being on my trains tonight, many passengers who have been on the wrong train, heading in the wrong way, or just not knowing of the situation. We are there for when all the tech goes wrong.

*Many times you will not find this in a printed report. If its very nasty, or delays a train a report will be put in and written up on some internal document and might get mentioned perhaps somewhere in the news where it goes, '230 passengers were injured at stations this last quarter.' I've even been sworn at for saving somebodies life by the person whose life I saved.

 

[jopsuk]

Paris, and some other Metro systems, run fully automated, unattended, trains.

 

[yorkie]

Paris, and some other Metro systems, run fully automated, unattended, trains.

I'm surprised they got that past the unions! I still can't see it being considered acceptable here.

 

[sarahj]

Paris, and some other Metro systems, run fully automated, unattended, trains.

The thought brick wall and banging your head against it comes to mind.

Yes, i can see the comparison between an enclosed system with most if not all stations manned, to a national rail network with many types of stations and trains.:roll:

The tech is possibly there, if we put platform screens at every station, spend billions on auto systems and run enclosed lines with every train being the same.

Or, you could employ someone to be on each train to try and make sure the train leaves on time and with punters safe and able to work from all stations on all the types of trains that call there. A sort of second pair of eyes for the driver. This person is also able to help out when brown stuff hits the fan.

 

[8J]

But do passengers want a member of staff constantly bugging them in the train. What I want from a guard, tm or conductor on a train is for them to do a full ticket check (which currently most do) and to be able to help if needed (which from experience they currently do) both whilst safely operating the doors... so why would people want DOO to be introduced? This is a cost saving measure without a shadow of doubt... And with the Northern ITT stating AT LEAST 50% of services to be DOO by 2020, who will be next?

This is the beginning of the destruction of the railways as we know it...