W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[Bletchleyite]

The proposal is that in certain circumstances at the discretion of TOC management it can run without any of the above arrangements in place.

And I as a passenger would rather it did than be cancelled in the event of disruption. Guard operation may be safer, but even DOO is safer than going by car.

What I would say is that there should be a heavy financial penalty for not having the second member of staff, but that that penalty should be less than for a cancellation.

 

[455driver]

I wll ask again!

Can anyone tell me what these extra on board staffs duties will consist of?
Or is it just more staff but less training/responsibility?

 

[Jonfun]

There's two distinct issues here.

One is running trains where only the driver has safety critical responsibility. My issue with this stems from the fact that you can only pile so much onto one person before mistakes (and I don't mean criminal negligence, like the James Street incident) are made, and these mistakes, especially in the dispatch process as we've seen with this recent incident on SouthEastern, can lead to serious injury or death to a passenger. I don't think it's fair to expect a driver of a ten coach (or whatever length train) in potentially the middle of nowhere with tens of miles between stations, having answered a passcom and found out his train is on fire, to have to balance finding a suitable stopping place, with making the necessary protection arrangements for an evacuation, with making a suitable PA announcement to try and reassure the passengers, with crew calling the onboard staff (if there are any), with going back and coordinating them to assist with the evacuation, with establishing a muster point, and the list goes on.

The second is running with no staff onboard other than the driver. From a customer service point of view, it's poor, as the proposal to run without crew in disruption is exactly when you need onboard staff. Even now, with a myriad of staff who can be called upon for assistance you still find folk who are trying to get to Sheffield heading RA Coventry. It also means you're then piling even more work onto the driver, who's now also got to set up the TMS (or equivalent), potentially make announcements, potentially end up having to walk back to put wheelchair passengers on and off, etc. The driver won't be able to go back and fix the toilets when all but one on the ten coach train have decided that because it's the third Wednesday of the month they're going to stop working, they won't be able to deal efficiently with any medical emergencies on board the train, when some wally decides to start to have a smoke in the loo they'll have to stop the train to check there isn't a fire.

It's clearly an attempt to try and run the railway with as little human input as possible, and as I mentioned on Facebook the other day, it won't be long until after they've purchased their ticket from a machine, got on a computer-controlled automatic train, following the advice of the computer controlled CIS screens and announcement, the only interaction a passenger has with a human on the railway will be when they're being reported for prosecution because they've ended up in Inverness instead of Penzance.

 

[40129]

There's two distinct issues here.

One is running trains where only the driver has safety critical responsibility. My issue with this stems from the fact that you can only pile so much onto one person before mistakes (and I don't mean criminal negligence, like the James Street incident) are made, and these mistakes, especially in the dispatch process as we've seen with this recent incident on SouthEastern, can lead to serious injury or death to a passenger. I don't think it's fair to expect a driver of a ten coach (or whatever length train) in potentially the middle of nowhere with tens of miles between stations, having answered a passcom and found out his train is on fire, to have to balance finding a suitable stopping place, with making the necessary protection arrangements for an evacuation, with making a suitable PA announcement to try and reassure the passengers, with crew calling the onboard staff (if there are any), with going back and coordinating them to assist with the evacuation, with establishing a muster point, and the list goes on.

The second is running with no staff onboard other than the driver. From a customer service point of view, it's poor, as the proposal to run without crew in disruption is exactly when you need onboard staff. Even now, with a myriad of staff who can be called upon for assistance you still find folk who are trying to get to Sheffield heading RA Coventry. It also means you're then piling even more work onto the driver, who's now also got to set up the TMS (or equivalent), potentially make announcements, potentially end up having to walk back to put wheelchair passengers on and off, etc. The driver won't be able to go back and fix the toilets when all but one on the ten coach train have decided that because it's the third Wednesday of the month they're going to stop working, they won't be able to deal efficiently with any medical emergencies on board the train, when some wally decides to start to have a smoke in the loo they'll have to stop the train to check there isn't a fire.

It's clearly an attempt to try and run the railway with as little human input as possible, and as I mentioned on Facebook the other day, it won't be long until after they've purchased their ticket from a machine, got on a computer-controlled automatic train, following the advice of the computer controlled CIS screens and announcement, the only interaction a passenger has with a human on the railway will be when they're being reported for prosecution because they've ended up in Inverness instead of Penzance.

Could not have put it better.

This forum really needs a 'like' button

 

[LateThanNever]

Could not have put it better.

This forum really needs a 'like' button

True, but all the better for saying it!
As has been pointed regularly: cars are less safe than railways, and DOO is less likely to be safe than guard operation.
But if money is not unlimited there have to be compromises. Surely this must involve people being comprehensively trained but with flexibility - so two people working with the driver as a proper crew for the best result which really amounts to the full confidence of passengers. Confidence is something few passengers would probably have if they knew there was only a lone driver in charge for the next 150 miles.
Unfortunately because of the strong - and opposing - union structure, the management has endeavoured to reduce costs by picking off the easiest target.
Instead of paying drivers a fortune to single man a train they should be looking to equalise the pay of guard and driver and be giving the guard additional and clear responsibilities such as train cleanlinliness and ticketing. Of course the best guards do this already but it seems to be a bit hit and miss. The trouble for the management will be the drivers will probably rebel - and no driver, no train. Till the automated train arrives the intermediate solution for management is no guard but still a train.
Very difficult to solve. Perhaps in future all guards should be encouraged to join ASLEF?

 

[alastair]

There's two distinct issues here.

One is running trains where only the driver has safety critical responsibility. My issue with this stems from the fact that you can only pile so much onto one person before mistakes (and I don't mean criminal negligence, like the James Street incident) are made, and these mistakes, especially in the dispatch process as we've seen with this recent incident on SouthEastern, can lead to serious injury or death to a passenger. I don't think it's fair to expect a driver of a ten coach (or whatever length train) in potentially the middle of nowhere with tens of miles between stations, having answered a passcom and found out his train is on fire, to have to balance finding a suitable stopping place, with making the necessary protection arrangements for an evacuation, with making a suitable PA announcement to try and reassure the passengers, with crew calling the onboard staff (if there are any), with going back and coordinating them to assist with the evacuation, with establishing a muster point, and the list goes on.

The second is running with no staff onboard other than the driver. From a customer service point of view, it's poor, as the proposal to run without crew in disruption is exactly when you need onboard staff. Even now, with a myriad of staff who can be called upon for assistance you still find folk who are trying to get to Sheffield heading RA Coventry. It also means you're then piling even more work onto the driver, who's now also got to set up the TMS (or equivalent), potentially make announcements, potentially end up having to walk back to put wheelchair passengers on and off, etc. The driver won't be able to go back and fix the toilets when all but one on the ten coach train have decided that because it's the third Wednesday of the month they're going to stop working, they won't be able to deal efficiently with any medical emergencies on board the train, when some wally decides to start to have a smoke in the loo they'll have to stop the train to check there isn't a fire.

It's clearly an attempt to try and run the railway with as little human input as possible, and as I mentioned on Facebook the other day, it won't be long until after they've purchased their ticket from a machine, got on a computer-controlled automatic train, following the advice of the computer controlled CIS screens and announcement, the only interaction a passenger has with a human on the railway will be when they're being reported for prosecution because they've ended up in Inverness instead of Penzance.

At the risk of asking the obvious question,how are these issues such as dealing with wheelchair passengers,people smoking in toilets and so on, dealt with on the huge number of trains that are already DOO?

 

[LowLevel]

They aren't in many cases. TOCs do a London Underground and ship wheelchair users round in taxis if there's no station staff and no one does anything about someone smoking in the bog - hence rubbish operators like the late FCC having terrible customer satisfaction scores for things like staff availability.

 

[FordFocus]

True, but all the better for saying it!
As has been pointed regularly: cars are less safe than railways, and DOO is less likely to be safe than guard operation.
But if money is not unlimited there have to be compromises. Surely this must involve people being comprehensively trained but with flexibility - so two people working with the driver as a proper crew for the best result which really amounts to the full confidence of passengers. Confidence is something few passengers would probably have if they knew there was only a lone driver in charge for the next 150 miles.
Unfortunately because of the strong - and opposing - union structure, the management has endeavoured to reduce costs by picking off the easiest target.
Instead of paying drivers a fortune to single man a train they should be looking to equalise the pay of guard and driver and be giving the guard additional and clear responsibilities such as train cleanlinliness and ticketing. Of course the best guards do this already but it seems to be a bit hit and miss. The trouble for the management will be the drivers will probably rebel - and no driver, no train. Till the automated train arrives the intermediate solution for management is no guard but still a train.
Very difficult to solve. Perhaps in future all guards should be encouraged to join ASLEF?

Guards can't join ASLEF as it's a driver union with the exception of certain Merseyrail guards who can drive trains but not full time.

All but a couple of TOCs have guards checking tickets. Some InterCity TOCs also have litter picks but it's down to the company agreement.

Never in a million years would a union(s) agree to a paycut that you've just suggested, sorry! Automation on an unmanned scale is decades away yet on the mainline.

 

[Flamingo]

And I as a passenger would rather it did than be cancelled in the event of disruption. Guard operation may be safer, but even DOO is safer than going by car.

What I would say is that there should be a heavy financial penalty for not having the second member of staff, but that that penalty should be less than for a cancellation.

You really do have an answer for every question, but not any idea which questions are important.

You still don't get it, do you? It won't be run DOO in case of disruption. It will be run DOO because Joe is on holidays and Resources don't want to pay overtime. It'll be run DOO because there is a recruitment freeze on. It'll be run DOO because there is no "As Required" turns in the roster to cover sickness and holidays any more because there will be no need to have them. It will be run DOO because this suits the political sensibilities of the ideology of whatever party is controlling the DfT at the time. There is no mention anywhere of a financial penalty for the TOC, that is inside your own head. As I have said before Neil, you saying "Make it happen" does NOT make things happen.

And when it does go horribly wrong, either in a big way or a myriad of small ways (as every member of on-train staff knows how it can and does happen), then it will be passengers like you who will be posting on here and there and Twitter complaining "How was this allowed to happen?", totally refusing to recognise that it was the "I'm all-right Jack" attitude you and others are currently displaying that allowed it to happen.

I honestly thought that the on-line community here would appreciate the seriousness of this issue, but I really despair with the attitudes displayed.

Can the individual members of this forum, of all people, not all accept that this is an important issue, and the introduction of new trains is not the time to experiment with the introduction of a new system of working? Or are you all so determined that you know better than the people doing the job that there is an automatic rejection of anything a member of staff says as just them being difficult and a jobsworth?

The cost implications of having a guard on each train is tiny - I take four or five times my salary every month in revenue that in a lot of cases would be walking out the door, and even if I didn't, my salary is probably not more than a couple of pence on every ticket I see. Is 2p per ticket too much to pay for the benefits of having a safety-critical trained member of staff on the train?

It's like the police, or an insurance policy - you may never need it, but if it's not there when you do, life suddenly becomes a lot more complicated.

 

[LateThanNever]

Guards can't join ASLEF as it's a driver union with the exception of certain Merseyrail guards who can drive trains but not full time.

All but a couple of TOCs have guards checking tickets. Some InterCity TOCs also have litter picks but it's down to the company agreement.

Never in a million years would a union(s) agree to a paycut that you've just suggested, sorry! Automation on an unmanned scale is decades away yet on the mainline.

Interesting info, thank you. I agree about the automation - but hence why guards are vulnerable.
And, as ever, if the union won't agree to a pay cut (I didn't suggest it, but it certainly might be a pay freeze that many outside the rail world have been subject to) it will end up agreeing to a job loss and that won't help their subscriptions! Don't unions see the broader picture?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting info, thank you. I agree about the automation - but hence why guards are vulnerable.
And, as ever, if the union won't agree to a pay cut (I didn't suggest it, but it certainly might be a pay freeze that many outside the rail world have been subject to) it will end up agreeing to a job loss and that won't help their subscriptions! Don't unions see the broader picture?

And also there is now scope for the part time Merseyrail guards to extend operations!

 

[muz379]

But if the driver can't see for certain, surely it is down to them to get up and nose out of the window, or even step out onto the platform, and not make assumptions?

This is an important point . Coming back to what you said earlier about Driver controlled doors making the train run quicker and getting those 2 minutes back on a 28 minute journey . Can you not see how this is yet another thing that is going to mean your 28 minute journey is going to take longer .

If Im stood on the platform ready to close my doors and there is someone blocking my view I can move to a position I can see with relative ease , I can also blow a whistle and get the person to move . Expecting the driver to have to leave the cab , step foot on the platform , check it is clear , return to the cab , check it is clear again , close doors , check it is clear again , brake off . Is going to take a lot longer .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You still don't get it, do you? It won't be run DOO in case of disruption. It will be run DOO because Joe is on holidays and Resources don't want to pay overtime. It'll be run DOO because there is a recruitment freeze on. It'll be run DOO because there is no "As Required" turns in the roster to cover sickness and holidays any more because there will be no need to have them. It will be run DOO because this suits the political sensibilities of the ideology of whatever party is controlling the DfT at the time. There is no mention anywhere of a financial penalty for the TOC, that is inside your own head. As I have said before Neil, you saying "Make it happen" does NOT make things happen.

This is the elephant in the room nobody wants to admit to . But if nobody is loosing pay and drivers are gaining pay then the only way the TOC can make introducing DOO work financially is by having services run without guards .

I mean what why are we going to pay someone to come to work and cover Holidays , training , sickness , spare turns and other leave if we can just run a train without them .

 

[martynbristow]

You really do have an answer for every question, but not any idea which questions are important.

You still don't get it, do you? It won't be run DOO in case of disruption. It will be run DOO because Joe is on holidays and Resources don't want to pay overtime. It'll be run DOO because there is a recruitment freeze on. It'll be run DOO because there is no "As Required" turns in the roster to cover sickness and holidays any more because there will be no need to have them. It will be run DOO because this suits the political sensibilities of the ideology of whatever party is controlling the DfT at the time. There is no mention anywhere of a financial penalty for the TOC, that is inside your own head. As I have said before Neil, you saying "Make it happen" does NOT make things happen.

And when it does go horribly wrong, either in a big way or a myriad of small ways (as every member of on-train staff knows how it can and does happen), then it will be passengers like you who will be posting on here and there and Twitter complaining "How was this allowed to happen?", totally refusing to recognise that it was the "I'm all-right Jack" attitude you and others are currently displaying that allowed it to happen.

I honestly thought that the on-line community here would appreciate the seriousness of this issue, but I really despair with the attitudes displayed.

Can the individual members of this forum, of all people, not all accept that this is an important issue, and the introduction of new trains is not the time to experiment with the introduction of a new system of working? Or are you all so determined that you know better than the people doing the job that there is an automatic rejection of anything a member of staff says as just them being difficult and a jobsworth?

The cost implications of having a guard on each train is tiny - I take four or five times my salary every month in revenue that in a lot of cases would be walking out the door, and even if I didn't, my salary is probably not more than a couple of pence on every ticket I see. Is 2p per ticket too much to pay for the benefits of having a safety-critical trained member of staff on the train?

It's like the police, or an insurance policy - you may never need it, but if it's not there when you do, life suddenly becomes a lot more complicated.

Can we clarify people are entitled to express their opinions here, in the same way you are, they are not required to accept yours!
You quote you take 4-5 times your salary every month, but on average staff costs are 28% of TOCs expenditure, an increase in 7% over 12 years! So it might be true for you but nit everyone.
The decision about how the network is operated is down to management.

 

[muz379]

Can we clarify people are entitled to express their opinions here, in the same way you are, they are not required to accept yours!
You quote you take 4-5 times your salary every month, but on average staff costs are 28% of TOCs expenditure, an increase in 7% over 12 years! So it might be true for you but nit everyone.
The decision about how the network is operated is down to management.

The 28% staff costs is not just the Guards salary . You have drivers , all of the control staff , depot managers , driver and guard managers , the full range of middle managers , cleaners ,revenue staff , station staff . The list goes on .

How convenient that it is management that get to choose where the axe falls . Given that in many tocs a cull of middle management could probably produce some impressive spending reductions .I guess turkeys dont vote for Christmas though .

 

[Flamingo]

Can we clarify people are entitled to express their opinions here, in the same way you are, they are not required to accept yours!
You quote you take 4-5 times your salary every month, but on average staff costs are 28% of TOCs expenditure, an increase in 7% over 12 years! So it might be true for you but nit everyone.
The decision about how the network is operated is down to management.

And can we also clarify that people are free to disagree with opinions, especially when those opinions are misinformed (to be polite about it).

The customer is not always right - sometimes the customer hasn't got a clue.

As regards the salary increase - did it occur that some of this might be due to the TOC's themselves introducing new roles? In the past few years, I can think of Twitter teams and Customer ambassadors, to name two of the more obvious ones. Thirty years ago how many IT staff do you think BR had? I'm sure others can come up with other examples.

Anyway, I see you are still ignoring the main point of my arguement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ohh dear very serious, I hope she recovers well.
However the issue is not that DOO (principle) is unsafe its that DOO's implementation is unsafe.
2 RAIB reports spring to mind involving non-DOO trains and both passengers died, 1 saw the guard convicted the other was an accident.
The RIAB clearly indicate that passengers can be misled.

Again totally missing the point.

In the case where the passenger died the guard was fully aware the passenger was there and made an incorrect decision, which he was convicted for. He was not ignoring her, she had his full attention but he made the wrong call.

If DOO the passengers do not have the drivers full attention, or anything like it.

 

[gtr driver]

Well said Flamingo. A certain person has been on the West Wickham incident thread blaming staff for that too; and not really listening to the replies which are backed with front line experience and facts, rather than just being opinions. I've not been posting long and I think I'm already despairing.

 

[Jonfun]

The problem with this forum is that we've got a large number of armchair experts who think that because they know a bit about trains, their opinion is fact.

Then, we also have a number of rail staff, who think because they've been a driver for a few years, their opinion is fact.

Then it tends to descend into an I'm right, you're wrong situation with little hope of reasoned debate.

 

[455driver]

The problem with this forum is that we've got a large number of armchair experts who think that because they know a bit about trains, their opinion is fact.

Then, we also have a number of rail staff, who think because they've been a driver for a few years, their opinion is fact.

Then it tends to descend into an I'm right, you're wrong situation with little hope of reasoned debate.

I think it a fair bet that a train driver (and the guards/TMs who post) will have a better understanding of train operation than some armchair exspurt!

 

[Jonfun]

For facts relating to train operation which they work with on a daily basis, yes. But both parties often confuse their opinion with fact. Do you recall the discussion about coupling Voyagers, Meridians and Pendolinos together and the nonsense which was spouted as "fact"?

 

[sbt]

I think it a fair bet that a train driver (and the guards/TMs who post) will have a better understanding of train operation than some armchair exspurt!

On the other hand those of us who aren't rail staff have a better idea about other things - despite the inclination of some rail staff to disagree.

I am reminded of a thread a while back where I was firmly told by a member of rail staff that I couldn't have felt intimidated in a certain situation. I was the bloke feeling intimidated by three RPIs blocking me into my seat in such a way that I was unable to stand up (in a situation where I had done nothing wrong). I think I'm a better judge of that situation than someone who wasn't there but no, its totally impossible that I could have felt intimidated and they were rail staff so they KNEW.

Getting back on track, I will give rail staff their due when they are being reasonable. But sometimes they are not, just like some non rail staff aren't. But please give those of us who aren't rail staff our due in return - we have our own areas of expertise, and some of it is rail related, or can be applied to the railway. For example I can explain some aspects of passenger behaviour that seem inexplicable to many staff and on another thread I have given an example of possible door identification markings to assist with DOO operations (which is not to say that I am a fan of DOO).

In both groups there are people who have particular Hobby-Horses or ideological positions. Regardless of whether they are, or are not, rail staff. These are the people who, in my opinion, cause the most problems.

 

[Monty]

I think it a fair bet that a train driver (and the guards/TMs who post) will have a better understanding of train operation than some armchair exspurt!

Personally if someone has be doing the job for the last decade or two its not unreasonable to expect a person to adopt that kind of attitude especially when confronted by others who think they may know better just because they have read a few issues of Rail Magazine (ironically some of the staff writers at that particular publication are just as bad).

Just because you can get away with little or no incident over a number of years does not mean a system is safe to assume otherwise is at best naive and at worse negligent. The RAF Nimrod operated for many years with only a few minor incidents yet one plane crashed in 2006 during mid-air refueling followed by another near miss in 2007 in similar circumstances, the subsequent inquiry that followed the assistant deputy coroner presiding over the case said the aircraft had never been airworthy from the date of introduction. As a result of both incidents the RAF mid-air refueling on the type until it was withdrawn from service. In typical Whitehall fashion the government tried to bury it in atempt to make it 'go away'.

 

[sbt]

In typical Whitehall fashion the government tried to bury it in atempt to make it 'go away'.

Now this is something that I DO know about.

'Burying' involved the 'Haddon-Cave' report which was deeply critical of not only the MOD but a number of others and very public. It led to major changes in the way the MOD and its suppliers do Safety Cases. Unlike most people here I have read it, cover to cover, and know people who spent years implementing its recommendations.

In fact it was so deeply 'buried' that the MOD put it on their website as soon as it was published.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229037/1025.pdf

But then, I'm not rail staff, so what do I know about the MOD, I only work for them.

 

[Flamingo]

Now this is something that I DO know about.

'Burying' involved the 'Haddon-Cave' report which was deeply critical of not only the MOD but a number of others and very public. It led to major changes in the way the MOD and its suppliers do Safety Cases. Unlike most people here I have read it, cover to cover, and know people who spent years implementing its recommendations.

In fact it was so deeply 'buried' that the MOD put it on their website as soon as it was published.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229037/1025.pdf

But then, I'm not rail staff, so what do I know about the MOD, I only work for them.

Fair enough, you know what you are talking about with MOD matters (and I'm sure you contribute very effectively on ARRSE ).

I would not argue with you over MOD matters, but a lot of staff on here have considerable experience, both in the operational railway, and in previous careers in other industries and services. This seems to be unpalatable to some rail enthusiasts who post on here.

Most of the time, it is possible to ignore some of the rubbish that gets sprouted on here, but this thread is different, and there is too much ignorance being displayed of the role of the Guard to allow it to go unremarked. There is a total misunderstanding of the role, responsibilities and above all abilities of the Guard role, and a view that because all the guard is seen doing is opening and closing the door, and checking tickets, then if the driver does the doors, all that is needed is somebody to check tickets, and as they won't know what they are checking anyway, they are not needed at all.

You are understandibly cross about somebody commenting disparingly on your employer without knowing the full picture or ignoring the inconvenient bits. Welcome to our world - it happens on most threads on this forum (and usually the same posters who do so), but as I said, this issue is too important to allow the usual level of complacency and ignorance to go unchallenged.

 

[Monty]

Now this is something that I DO know about.

'Burying' involved the 'Haddon-Cave' report which was deeply critical of not only the MOD but a number of others and very public. It led to major changes in the way the MOD and its suppliers do Safety Cases. Unlike most people here I have read it, cover to cover, and know people who spent years implementing its recommendations.

In fact it was so deeply 'buried' that the MOD put it on their website as soon as it was published.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229037/1025.pdf

But then, I'm not rail staff, so what do I know about the MOD, I only work for them.

I was referring to the incident itself (both the RAF and MOD downplayed that there was anything inherently wrong with the plane) rather than the report itself my apologies for not making it clearer, the Haddon-Cave exposed countless failings by the MOD that had been kept quiet for years there was no way the MOD would be able to bury that. However I will say the investigation into the crash itself also came under criticism for the length of time it took. This is irrelevant though because what did come to light was that these aircraft were not airworthy despite flying for many years without incident.

 

[Carlisle]

. This is irrelevant though because what did come to light was that these aircraft were not airworthy despite flying for many years without incident.

So you realistically see a future safety report of some kind so damming that it will eventually ban DOO in most/all of the fairly large number of countries that now use it on at least part of their rail network ?

 

[Jonfun]

It depends on each country's attitude to safety. Go to some countries, even in Europe, and there isn't even a platform, never mind a yellow line. You climb up onto the train from the ballast. Our safety laws in the UK are very strict.

 

[Monty]

So you realistically see a future safety report of some kind so damming that it will eventually ban DOO in most/all of the fairly large number of countries that now use it on at least part of their rail network ?

Personally? No I do not but I used it as an example where you should not assume something is safe just because you can get away without having an accident.

 

[yorkie]

So, to clarify, are you, or indeed anyone, saying the majority of passenger journeys made in this country (on driver only operated trains) are undertaken on unsafe trains?

 

[Jonfun]

Unsafe is subjective. And do you have a source which says the majority of journeys are made on Driver only operated trains?

 

[yorkie]

Unsafe is subjective.

But we're agreed it's widely and officially considered safe, and indeed is considerably safer than other modes of transport, right?

And do you have a source which says the majority of journeys are made on Driver only operated trains?

Are you suggesting otherwise? I don't have the stats, but if you look at the huge number of journeys made in the London & South East area (plus other urban areas such as in Strathclyde), which are mostly DOO, it's pretty obvious really.

I know that the people who dislike DOO will say that suburban services don't count for the purpose of this discussion, but there are fast DOO services such as those on Great Northern and Southeastern High Speed 1 (the latter doesn't have Guards but has On Board Managers) which are comparable.

If money was no object, I doubt any of us would disagree it would be nice to have a Guard on every train (and multiple Guards on longer trains), staff at all stations and so on...

But money is no object and if the rail industry does not reduce costs, there will be closures, and people will be forced to travel by modes such as bus instead!

 

[455driver]

A couple of questions for you (and your love of guards) Yorkie-

Is DOO safer than crew working, yes or no?

Would you be happy travelling on a train from London to Cardiff with just a driver on board?


General remark-
Peoples comparisons with DOO stopping services are not really relevant, this is about high speed Inter City type train running on conventional lines with potentially just a driver on board.

Oh and as everyone seems to have missed the 3 other occasions I have asked the question (I assume that's why nobody has replied)-

Can anyone state categorically what these extra on board staff (which FGW keep mentioning) are actually going to do?