W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[ComUtoR]

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.

Were would you prefer the money gets spent ? Spending the money on those onboard staff in case of incident or money being spent on preventing an incident ?

 

[Jonfun]

There seems to be the view on here that staff have to either be trained in safety critical duties or not be trained at all. Plenty of TOCs successfully fall in to the middle ground and train their onboard staff in safety procedures, and quite honestly, I'm surprised that FGW don't. Obviously it doesn't make sense to make a cleaner safety critical - the idea of taking dispatch duties away from Train Managers is to make them non-safety critical too.

 

[yorkie]

Yorkie, I think the main problem is that there is scope in the announcement for FGW to run services with just a driver....

They already do. The proposal is to operate less trains with just a driver.

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!

I don't understand what you are saying. The proposal is to have more on-board staff overall, than at present.

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

But you drive trains for Southeastern, some of which do not have staff trained to help you in an emergency, right? Are you saying you are driving unsafe trains? Sorry if I've misunderstood but that's what it sounds like to me.

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.

Driver Only Operation has been around for over 30 years, and these days the majority of passenger journeys by rail in Britain are made on trains which are Driver Only Operated.

If DOO is unsafe, the majority of us are travelling on unsafe trains.

 

[pompeyfan]

I understand what your saying, and get how you are explaining your viewpoint, but as far as I'm concerned I would be a lot more comfortable with an agreement put in place along the lines of the javelins, no OBM, no service.

i'm not arguing for or against the safety case of DOO, it's something I don't know enough about, as all services near me operate a guard, so would be unfair for me to comment on, that said surely assistance is easier to get on a 75mph metro service then a 125mph IEP?

 

[ComUtoR]

If DOO is unsafe, the majority of us are travelling on unsafe trains.

This is the most ridiculous and pointless argument ever spouted in the DOO debate.

There is a line, drawn in chalk, on a sandy beach, on the edge the water. On one side there is safety and the other side is money. Above the line is the future and below it is history. Most of the time is is muddy and the line gets blurred.

DOO is considered safe but it is only safe as per current safety requirements. Irrespective or whether a guard or any onboard staff the only thing(s) preventing that train from being unsafe is the Driver and the Signals. Modern traction is far safer than old slamdoor stock and the railways is a lot safer than it used to be. TPWS/AWS etc protect the railway and the safety standards of the units protect the passenger. Major incidents are rare and usually involve a violation. Onboard safety critical staff aren't required.

No one is saying (or at least shouldn't be) that DOO isn't "safe" but it is simply a relative position of safety. You have safe, safer and safest. As a passenger what would you prefer ?

The next step in the evolution is ERTMS and the step after that will be ATO. That line in the sand will be eroded and driven back by the sea as standards change.

 

[455driver]

How will all these extra be useful during disruption etc?
About the only use I can see is serving you a cup of tea at your seat!

They sure as hell won't be any use from a safety point of view, extra staff on trains doesn't mean extra safety critical staff on board does it!

 

[Jonfun]

Why do you need more safety critical staff? There's only so many safety critical tasks which need to be performed, and the whole point of DOO is that you give them all to the driver instead of sharing them between the driver and guard.

 

[LateThanNever]

Driver Only Operation has been around for over 30 years, and these days the majority of passenger journeys by rail in Britain are made on trains which are Driver Only Operated.

If DOO is unsafe, the majority of us are travelling on unsafe trains.

I think your logic must be accepted - the majority of us are travelling on unsafe trains.
Though I don't think we need to be quite so absolutist and we should say these trains are less safe than they otherwise could be.
And of course a 5 minute journey is a journey as is a 5 hour one - and so I think the statistics are slightly misleading.

In the end there seems to be a lack of railway jobs where you can learn about the railway on the job - no shelf stackers seem to become store managers and more a la Terry Leahy. A way has to be found I suggest to provide a more flexible apprenticeship type training, rather than months of extended training before actually going in to 'revenue earning' service. So more railway staff have the ability to do more things - so they'll be railway specialists rather than door closing specialists - as it were.

How will all these extra be useful during disruption etc?
About the only use I can see is serving you a cup of tea at your seat!

They sure as hell won't be any use from a safety point of view, extra staff on trains doesn't mean extra safety critical staff on board does it!

A cuppa can of course be useful in an emergency, but if extra staff are not useful then they are not employing the right people in the right jobs.

 

[muz379]

They already do. The proposal is to operate less trains with just a driver.

I don't understand what you are saying. The proposal is to have more on-board staff overall, than at present.

And once again we are back at the big elephant in the room

The management at FGW are suggesting nobody is going to loose their job and nobody is going to loose pay and conditions . They actually are suggesting they are going to increase numbers of on board staff . How is this going to save money .

I understand the suggestion is that guards will be able to collect more revenue to offset this cost . But on intercity services I doubt that is a problem as they aren't running back to the doors every 5 minutes . And even if it was a problem there is a much cheaper solution that could be implemented immediately with complete agreement with the unions and substantially lower capital costs than implementing DOO .


As for the argument over being safety critical instead of using that ambiguous phrase lets be clear about this . If you want someone who is actually able to assist in the event of an on board emergency that requires an evacuation you need someone who is sufficiently trained , that includes traction training so that they know how to open doors in an emergency , where the emergency equipment is located and the general layout of the unit . You want someone who is PTS qualified so that they know how to keep themselves safe on or near the line so that they can direct the passengers to a position of safety . You also want someone who has route knowledge so they have sufficient knowledge of local risks .

There is no point in showing someone how to use the edr and how to climb down from a unit if that person doesn't know that they operate in an area with third rail and so before even contemplating an evacuation they need to ring the eco to get that switched off .

 

[387star]

This may not count for much but as a guard I very much enjoy operating the doors multi-tasking ensuring I am in the correct positions etc... I love the sense of responsibility associated with the role and frequently assess my knowledge to ensure it is up to date

Taking away all that is safety critical makes the job appear deskilled

Memory retention and practical safety awareness require a lot more skill/the right attributes than merely selling tickets

At the moment guards work as a team with the driver and the drivers check important information with guards because they know we carry a great responsibility and are trusted... so it works both ways... implement DOO and sharing messrooms with drivers becomes an anomaly

 

[Jonfun]

As for the argument over being safety critical instead of using that ambiguous phrase lets be clear about this.

There is no ambiguity. What is safety critical work is clearly defined in law.

Merely assisting in an emergeny evacuation is not safety critical and anyone assisting such would not need to know anything other than how to safely get people out and away from danger, and keep themselves safe on the line as all protection arrangements would be made by the safety critical worker authorising the evacuation.

A controlled evacuation is a different kettle of fish as you have much more time to plan what's happening and who's doing what.

 

[387star]

Does anyone know how the guard role wage is calculated? The basic is roughly half that of a driver and I see the wage in relation to that of a driver. Clearly if drivers wage goes up then a guard follows suit as we share the running of the train and the pay is largely based on the safety critical aspect and the shift work... Of course the unions help a lot as well

 

[muz379]

There is no ambiguity. What is safety critical work is clearly defined in law.

Merely assisting in an emergeny evacuation is not safety critical and anyone assisting such would not need to know anything other than how to safely get people out and away from danger, and keep themselves safe on the line as all protection arrangements would be made by the safety critical worker authorising the evacuation.

A controlled evacuation is a different kettle of fish as you have much more time to plan what's happening and who's doing what.

I know it is clearly defined by the ORR . however people just keep saying it with no respect as to what the ORR says nor what the ORR actually intends to be the case .

If supervising track workers in a possession means someone is a safety critical worker how can it possibly be intended that you would have someone whose work is not safety critical supervising people not even qualified to be on the track in a high stress situation . That minor legal argument asside .

I dont see how you can argue that a guards route knowledge as well as traction knowledge and pts qualification is there for anything else but to keep themselves and any passengers they might be responsible for safe if an emergency evacuation is required . Route knowledge is one of the most important things for staying safe out there . otherwise how are you going to know in the dark with limited light from torch/phone screens if that extra bit of rail lying on the ground is just old running rail or if it is actually a third rail that could potentially kill you and anyone else in your care who steps on it . How are you going to know if that downed OLE is still live unless you are trained in and know how to contact and which ECO controls that area to make sure it has been isolated . Quite simply you wont .I understand that you can posess this information and not be safety critical . The point I am trying to make is some people think that helping in an evacuation is as simple as opening a door with an EDR , climbing down and running to the cess .

 

[bnm]

In terms of danger potential, trains and the environment they operate in are more hazardous than roads.

Remind me, what are rail v road death stats?

 

[martynbristow]

I know it is clearly defined by the ORR . however people just keep saying it with no respect as to what the ORR says nor what the ORR actually intends to be the case .

If supervising track workers in a possession means someone is a safety critical worker how can it possibly be intended that you would have someone whose work is not safety critical supervising people not even qualified to be on the track in a high stress situation . That minor legal argument asside .

I dont see how you can argue that a guards route knowledge as well as traction knowledge and pts qualification is there for anything else but to keep themselves and any passengers they might be responsible for safe if an emergency evacuation is required . Route knowledge is one of the most important things for staying safe out there . otherwise how are you going to know in the dark with limited light from torch/phone screens if that extra bit of rail lying on the ground is just old running rail or if it is actually a third rail that could potentially kill you and anyone else in your care who steps on it . How are you going to know if that downed OLE is still live unless you are trained in and know how to contact and which ECO controls that area to make sure it has been isolated . Quite simply you wont .I understand that you can posess this information and not be safety critical . The point I am trying to make is some people think that helping in an evacuation is as simple as opening a door with an EDR , climbing down and running to the cess .

The advise provided is to remain where you are until instructed otherwise.
To move to the next coach etc
Then makes things much easier for an eventual recovery.
The local knowledge should extend to well beyond the track though if you evacuating alone in the dark. Whats the nearest place of safety, as in away from the track, animals electric fences and is also warm and protected. We seem to be discussing removing people from the train which shouldn't happen without sufficient backup when everything will be isolated OR risks mitigated.
In the event of a more time critical situation only more staff would help.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Remind me, what are rail v road death stats?

And maybe we should remind ourselves why?
Is this safety critical staff or regulation!
The railways behave very professionally which reduces the risk of an accident.

 

[yorkie]

And maybe we should remind ourselves why?

Because standards are higher. And rightly so.

But should they be so high that rail becomes unviable, leading to the closure of some lines, and their replacement by less safe buses?

It has happened before, and there is a real risk it could happen again.

 

[Jonfun]

Muz - I agree - control of evacuation should be under a Guard as opposed to the driver. But folk trying to argue that it's safety critical training or no training at all helps nobody's cause.

I also agree with your point that evacuation isn't all about pulling an egress and jumping down. And I'm personally very surprised that not all of FGW's onboard staff are trained to assist in safely evacuating a train. At my TOC, onboard staff learn emergency procedures, evacuating a smoke filled carriage, how to safely get people to track level, and how not to get killed on the line etc before they even set foot on a train. Thus they are in a position to assist the person controlling the evacuation in doing so safely.

 

[martynbristow]

Because standards are higher. And rightly so.

But should they be so high that rail becomes unviable, leading to the closure of some lines, and their replacement by less safe buses?

It has happened before, and there is a real risk it could happen again.

Well its the preventative measures put in place like AWS/TWPS that make things primarily safer reducing the number of incidents in the first place and thats where the focus should be.
But we shouldn't over protect or over staff as quite rightly it will price rail out.

 

[island]

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)???

I doubt the unions would be having that.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Say the driver is incapacitated for whatever reason, could the guard or any other on-board staff gain access to the GSM-R? When the GSM-R connects to the signaller on emergency mode, does the signaller get any sort of automatic indication as to the exact location of the train making the emergency call?

 

[notadriver]

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)???

Why not go further and train them to move the train as well in the event of the driver becoming incapacitated? (On trams for example revenue and office staff can all drive on croydon tramlink)

 

[nidave]

I understand where you are coming from and the gov wants there to be more staff on the trains but what is important is protecting the pay and conditions including the pay rises members currently see not to mention security


Even if the doors are controlled by the driver it remains important for the guard to be safety critical

I cant tell if your joking about the first part of this statement (my bold) . - I wont comment until I know the answer.

 

[387star]

I cant tell if your joking about the first part of this statement (my bold) . - I wont comment until I know the answer.

Err serious why?

 

[martynbristow]

Err serious why?

Is this the case for the rest of the UK population. Are we all to be given progressive pay rises and guaranteed job security?
Its a private company like any other.

 

[nidave]

Err serious why?

I am not sure of your intention when posting as it has come across that nothing matters than making sure you keep getting the same pay rises that you have always received no matter what happens. This seems to be the gist of the post. Not safety, not customer service but the same money (I can understand not waning to have to take a pay cut) and regular pay rises. I am happy to be corrected.

 

[yorkie]

I cant tell if your joking about the first part of this statement (my bold) . - I wont comment until I know the answer.

He's being serious. That's what this whole discussion is really about; a Guard (who may or may not be commercial - that's not the main part of the role) is paid more than a travelling ticket inspector (TTI), revenue protection inspector/officer (RPI/RPO), or an on-board manager (OBM) who don't do things like operate the doors and whose roles are more aimed at customer interaction.

FGW have stated they are not going to be reducing the pay of any existing staff, as their pay & conditions will be protected.

However some will feel it's not right that the role is being degraded in any way.

It's understandable that people will feel upset if the job they do is downgraded, whether or not it affects them personally. It has happened to me once in my main job (subsequently reversed) and another time in my supplementary job (which remains the case) and in my case, I actually did take a financial hit myself (which isn't so easy to do to rail staff because of the unions). It's not nice and I certainly wouldn't wish any of that on any FGW staff.

 

[nidave]

He's being serious. That's what this whole discussion is really about; a Guard (who may or may not be commercial - that's not the main part of the role) is paid more than a travelling ticket inspector (TTI), revenue protection inspector/officer (RPI/RPO), or an on-board manager (OBM) who don't do things like operate the doors and whose roles are more aimed at customer interaction.

FGW have stated they are not going to be reducing the pay of any existing staff, as their pay & conditions will be protected.

However some will feel it's not right that the role is being degraded in any way.

It's understandable that people will feel upset if the job they do is downgraded, whether or not it affects them personally. It has happened to me once in my main job (subsequently reversed) and another time in my supplementary job (which remains the case) and in my case, I actually did take a financial hit myself (which isn't so easy to do to rail staff because of the unions). It's not nice and I certainly wouldn't wish any of that on any FGW staff.

I don't wish anyone to have to loose pay and conditions, I would fight for that as well myself - However from reading this thread, the whole complaint is supposed to be on safety grounds and the post I quoted gives the impression that its not about that or anything other than making sure they keep getting pay rises.

The more staff the better, Do staff who are trained in the safety systems and on what to do in an emergency (however I have had experience -in my own job - where the person in charge of an emergency should never have been so as they fell to bits really quickly) have to dispatch the train?

I get the feeling I have missed a big point somewhere.

 

[Carlisle]

if extra staff are not useful then they are not employing the right people in the right jobs.

Well said , probably the best suggestion on this thread so far

 

[muz379]

Say the driver is incapacitated for whatever reason, could the guard or any other on-board staff gain access to the GSM-R? When the GSM-R connects to the signaller on emergency mode, does the signaller get any sort of automatic indication as to the exact location of the train making the emergency call?

At my TOC us guards are trained in how to use the gsmr and as there is one in each cab we would use the one in whatever cab was nearest in the event of an emergency .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is this the case for the rest of the UK population. Are we all to be given progressive pay rises and guaranteed job security?
Its a private company like any other.

I actually do think that everyone should be given a pay rise at least in line with inflation and job security . If you dont feel that this is the case maybe join a union and get campaigning in your industry . that is one of the main reasons why rail staff get such pay rises for the work they do .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
as for the issue of guards payrises . I think understandably a lot will be worried that downgrading of responsibilities will eventually bring with it a pay cut in real terms .

Whilst FGW are promising that nobody will loose their job and nobody will have their pay and conditions altered I think a lot will be worried that the next time a payrise is being discussed they could find they are getting a pay freeze which is a real terms cut .

And obviously FGW has placed no infinite time limit on that guarantee that there wont be job losses and there wont be pay and conditions alterations .

 

[martynbristow]

At my TOC us guards are trained in how to use the gsmr and as there is one in each cab we would use the one in whatever cab was nearest in the event of an emergency .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I actually do think that everyone should be given a pay rise at least in line with inflation and job security . If you dont feel that this is the case maybe join a union and get campaigning in your industry . that is one of the main reasons why rail staff get such pay rises for the work they do .

I don't think people shouldn't get it. I think everyone should get it not just on the railway!
But above inflation rises have occurred on the railway (McNulty)
With job security it should be secure for an appropriate period which is comparable to the rest of the UK.
Personally: My present post I did get inflation raises but not my teaching. With my teaching the pay has not gone up at all in 10 years! The union can't get everyone else a pay rise so there's no point. In academia you can't strike you just **** everyone off :/ we just have to reschedule