W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[yorkie]

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

Is DOO safer than crew working, yes or no?

It's probably safer, in most respects, to have all the safety systems requried by DOO, and an on-board manager/TTI than it is to not have those systems (e.g. not be covered by cab secure radio) and have a traditional Guard and rely on things like detonators being placed on the track in the event of an incident, rather than being able to stop/alert all trains immediately.

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

It would be considerably safer than travelling from London to Cardiff by bus or car with just a driver on board, which many people do.

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.

Then I refer you to Great Northern services which are non stop from King's Cross to places like Cambridge or Biggleswade (further than Reading), and Southeastern High Speed 1 services.

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?

I think you'd need to ask FGW for the categorical answer to that.

 

[455driver]

It's probably safer, in most respects, to have all the safety systems requried by DOO, and an on-board manager/TTI than it is to not have those systems (e.g. not be covered by cab secure radio) and have a traditional Guard and rely on things like detonators being placed on the track in the event of an incident, rather than being able to stop/alert all trains immediately.

It would be considerably safer than travelling from London to Cardiff by bus or car with just a driver on board, which many people do.


Then I refer you to Great Northern services which are non stop from King's Cross to places like Cambridge or Biggleswade (further than Reading), and Southeastern High Speed 1 services.

Thank you for side stepping every question!
Have you ever thought about a career in politics?

I think you'd need to ask FGW for the categorical answer to that.

I have, they wouldn't/couldn't answer it, I wonder why?

 

[FGWman]

The reason you have a second person on many trains is that there are currently some functions that the driver is unable to do.

On a HST the driver cannot open and close the doors so a second person has to do this. When the new trains arrive the driver will be able to do this so there will no longer be a requirement to have a second person on board.

 

[Jonfun]

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.

Oh look, it's the fact vs opinion issue again! What about the huge number of passenger journeys made in London and the South East with a Guard, and the large number of passenger journeys made in other metropolitan areas with a Guard?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

And there is the question. One would hope they all receive safety training as is standard with other operators - but posts on here suggest current onboard staff for FGW receive little training, so will they just continue this?

 

[sbt]

Quick point ref London and SE. In the South West sector (SWT etc.) from my experience DOO is rare, and that area includes some of the busiest lines. So I'm not sure that the majority of trips ARE DOO, especially if you eliminate LU who seem to have got things running on a reasonably safe basis.

----

I'm not a fan of DOO, at least until the supporting technology improves significantly. And even then, being pretty widely read on rail safety, including its history, I'm not sure (as in, it would take a bloody thorough Safety Case to convince me).

Since we DO have DOO on some lines I'm also in favour of improving the supporting tech. For a start there is probably a lot of stuff that can be read over from the MOD Future Infantry Soldier Technology programme on stuff like readability of displays etc. Thats a situation where safety may not be paramount but someone is working to make your day as UNsafe as possible. There are many other ideas that come to mind just idly thinking things through. If we (as in rail staff and passengers together) have to have DOO it is unfair to all of us for the risks not to be mitigated to the greatest extent reasonable.

It strikes me that DOO support systems are a 'poor relation', probably classed as 'Station Systems', officially or otherwise, and thus not accorded the same level of scrutiny and thinking as signalling and the rolling stock. They, in my less informed view, require a good look at, including scrutiny by people outside the rail world who may think in terms of technology that might otherwise not be considered.

For example automated image processing to detect new objects in given areas of a camera view that takes account of weather etc. has been available for free for some time now on inexpensive processing platforms. Whilst I wouldn't see this as a primary tool I could see some utility as a back up alerting device for the Driver - but a lot of thinking and testing would be required before fielding it.

----

As to long distance, as a passenger I'm not keen, even if you leave out the safety angle. It may be called 'Customer Service', to me its 'Anarchy Prevention'.

Now First may be saying 'default is to have a TM' at the moment but, with no real pressure to keep things that way, I can see how things will end up. Even the fact that the Driver has to think in terms of two modes, with and without TM support is, to me, a problem.

At the very least there needs to be some sort of formal procedure and criteria to allow Driver Only operation. IMHO at the very least it should require sign off by someone reasonably senior and appear in performance statistics - say count a train run Driver Only as not arriving on time (with no 'beyond out control' get out), as its in a degraded service mode. Or maybe there should be a 'Degraded Service' target, covering Driver Only, catering not provided, excessive toilets locked out etc. <Muses>.

 

[LowLevel]

Cab secure radio is no longer an optional issue and is there whether you have a guard or not in the form of GSMR, with a few exceptions. At my TOC guards are fully trained in how to use it and I do so all the time. It's not flawless however. It's therefore a fallacy to say that by going DOO you get a reliable cab radio - it's there anyway, to the extent that all trains I work now have the NRN isolated.

Once again as a guard I'm getting somewhat fed up of informed hobbyists debating our livelihood as a point of interest and I really should stop reading as I promise myself. Here follows though a list of justifications of my role in a disorganised manner as they pop out of my head.

I've prevented a possible suicide on my train by active observation of my passengers. A colleague has jumped in when their driver went to pieces having hit a car on an AHB crossing. I've helped fix a defective air system the driver couldn't resolve alone, having already herded the passengers off a defective train, across a station and in to a service with a stop order. I've seen a drunk sprinting and shouting across a bridge and not dispatched the train as I've known he'd get there before we left the platform and might end up under us. A colleague has stopped a train with a red flag in the last 12 months from hitting a stalled tractor on a crossing, with his train only just having stopped. I've intervened when a freight train with a door open showered my train with ballast. I've fixed a knackered HVAC unit that was cooking my passengers. I've noted a failed speedo in the rear cab and took action to get us diverted before a reversal point where we'd be stranded. I've had a passenger board the train in a puddle of blood having nicked an artery in an ulcerated foot and released the first aid box and taken appropriate action. A colleague has looked after passengers and their driver when a suicidal person's corpse smashed into the driving cab and prevented the driver from leaving it, while they were understandably having a meltdown.

In short - we are jacks of all trades who have to deal with every eventuality and I find it irritating that folk are so blasé about watering down our role/getting shot of us.

 

[Flamingo]

Cab secure radio is no longer an optional issue and is there whether you have a guard or not in the form of GSMR, with a few exceptions. At my TOC guards are fully trained in how to use it and I do so all the time. It's not flawless however. It's therefore a fallacy to say that by going DOO you get a reliable cab radio - it's there anyway, to the extent that all trains I work now have the NRN isolated.

Once again as a guard I'm getting somewhat fed up of informed hobbyists debating our livelihood as a point of interest and I really should stop reading as I promise myself. Here follows though a list of justifications of my role in a disorganised manner as they pop out of my head.

I've prevented a possible suicide on my train by active observation of my passengers. A colleague has jumped in when their driver went to pieces having hit a car on an AHB crossing. I've helped fix a defective air system the driver couldn't resolve alone, having already herded the passengers off a defective train, across a station and in to a service with a stop order. I've seen a drunk sprinting and shouting across a bridge and not dispatched the train as I've known he'd get there before we left the platform and might end up under us. A colleague has stopped a train with a red flag in the last 12 months from hitting a stalled tractor on a crossing, with his train only just having stopped. I've intervened when a freight train with a door open showered my train with ballast. I've fixed a knackered HVAC unit that was cooking my passengers. I've noted a failed speedo in the rear cab and took action to get us diverted before a reversal point where we'd be stranded. I've had a passenger board the train in a puddle of blood having nicked an artery in an ulcerated foot and released the first aid box and taken appropriate action. A colleague has looked after passengers and their driver when a suicidal person's corpse smashed into the driving cab and prevented the driver from leaving it, while they were understandably having a meltdown.

In short - we are jacks of all trades who have to deal with every eventuality and I find it irritating that folk are so blasé about watering down our role/getting shot of us.

Exactly the points I'm trying to make. Every guard can come up with a list of similar scenarios where having a guard on-board has been the difference between life and death, or at least serious injury.

The potential loss of the role is a major issue - I can't believe that people on this site who claim to have an interest in the running of the railway are shrugging their shoulders and saying "So what"! It displays a staggering lack of understanding and insight.

But I suppose as long as TOC's don't interfer with the routing points and double-back easements, those posters just don't care. If the proposal was to block split-ticketing, I can hear the outcry already.

 

[bnm]

But I suppose as long as TOC's don't interfer with the routing points and double-back easements, those posters just don't care. If the proposal was to block split-ticketing, I can hear the outcry already.

Straw man.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Cab secure radio is no longer an optional issue and is there whether you have a guard or not in the form of GSMR, with a few exceptions. At my TOC guards are fully trained in how to use it and I do so all the time. It's not flawless however. It's therefore a fallacy to say that by going DOO you get a reliable cab radio - it's there anyway, to the extent that all trains I work now have the NRN isolated.

Once again as a guard I'm getting somewhat fed up of informed hobbyists debating our livelihood as a point of interest and I really should stop reading as I promise myself. Here follows though a list of justifications of my role in a disorganised manner as they pop out of my head.

I've prevented a possible suicide on my train by active observation of my passengers. A colleague has jumped in when their driver went to pieces having hit a car on an AHB crossing. I've helped fix a defective air system the driver couldn't resolve alone, having already herded the passengers off a defective train, across a station and in to a service with a stop order. I've seen a drunk sprinting and shouting across a bridge and not dispatched the train as I've known he'd get there before we left the platform and might end up under us. A colleague has stopped a train with a red flag in the last 12 months from hitting a stalled tractor on a crossing, with his train only just having stopped. I've intervened when a freight train with a door open showered my train with ballast. I've fixed a knackered HVAC unit that was cooking my passengers. I've noted a failed speedo in the rear cab and took action to get us diverted before a reversal point where we'd be stranded. I've had a passenger board the train in a puddle of blood having nicked an artery in an ulcerated foot and released the first aid box and taken appropriate action. A colleague has looked after passengers and their driver when a suicidal person's corpse smashed into the driving cab and prevented the driver from leaving it, while they were understandably having a meltdown.

In short - we are jacks of all trades who have to deal with every eventuality and I find it irritating that folk are so blasé about watering down our role/getting shot of us.

Now wheres that "Like" button.

Seriously though unless you are/have been a guard (like a minority of us on here are) you only know the job description not actually what happens from day to day and what happens when serious "incidents" occur. I gave up trying to give my opinion to a minority who so love DOO that they would go from Lands end to John O Groats without a guard and just a driver (if it was possible) quite happily and when that driver is traumatised after just wiping out a kid crossing the tracks or similar they are convinced that technology and TOC's will have it sorted quickly and safely. As a guard I and my colleagues know it is complete bullocks. If that driver is traumatised chances are he won't press the Red GSMR button and the signaller/Control will struggle contacting him/her. and by the time emergency services have arrived chances are passengers are on the track causing all sorts of risks. A good guard knows where they are at all times (a lot of us know just by the feel of the ride) They are trained in all aspects of their role and they keep people safe.

That is all

 

[muz379]

ng "So what"! It displays a staggering lack of understanding and insight.

But I suppose as long as TOC's don't interfer with the routing points and double-back easements, those posters just don't care. If the proposal was to block split-ticketing, I can hear the outcry already.

I do find it quite interesting that people on here are prepared to believe FGW when they say that there wont be staff losses and there wont be trains running around without train manager apart from in cases of serious disruption .

However when it comes to ticketing and revenue protection policies there is a great deal of cynicism on this forum for the way tocs behave .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Now wheres that "Like" button.

Seriously though unless you are/have been a guard (like a minority of us on here are) you only know the job description not actually what happens from day to day and what happens when serious "incidents" occur. I gave up trying to give my opinion to a minority who so love DOO that they would go from Lands end to John O Groats without a guard and just a driver (if it was possible) quite happily and when that driver is traumatised after just wiping out a kid crossing the tracks or similar they are convinced that technology and TOC's will have it sorted quickly and safely. As a guard I and my colleagues know it is complete bullocks. If that driver is traumatised chances are he won't press the Red GSMR button and the signaller/Control will struggle contacting him/her. and by the time emergency services have arrived chances are passengers are on the track causing all sorts of risks. A good guard knows where they are at all times (a lot of us know just by the feel of the ride) They are trained in all aspects of their role and they keep people safe.

That is all

Indeed , every guard can think of a number of incidents where they have made the difference . Or where potentially had things gone slightly differently they would have had to step up into that role of taking charge .

take this incident for example http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/southport-train-driver-lucky-alive-8876862 , Had that paving stone come through the drivers window rather than the destination blind the guard of that train might have had to take charge of that situation after finding out one of his colleagues was dead or seriously injured . What are the passengers on that train going to do if they are not supervised by a guard when they hear a smash followed by a bang followed by the train grinding to a halt ?

 

[LateThanNever]

Cab secure radio is no longer an optional issue and is there whether you have a guard or not in the form of GSMR, with a few exceptions. At my TOC guards are fully trained in how to use it and I do so all the time. It's not flawless however. It's therefore a fallacy to say that by going DOO you get a reliable cab radio - it's there anyway, to the extent that all trains I work now have the NRN isolated.

Once again as a guard I'm getting somewhat fed up of informed hobbyists debating our livelihood as a point of interest and I really should stop reading as I promise myself. Here follows though a list of justifications of my role in a disorganised manner as they pop out of my head.

I've prevented a possible suicide on my train by active observation of my passengers. A colleague has jumped in when their driver went to pieces having hit a car on an AHB crossing. I've helped fix a defective air system the driver couldn't resolve alone, having already herded the passengers off a defective train, across a station and in to a service with a stop order. I've seen a drunk sprinting and shouting across a bridge and not dispatched the train as I've known he'd get there before we left the platform and might end up under us. A colleague has stopped a train with a red flag in the last 12 months from hitting a stalled tractor on a crossing, with his train only just having stopped. I've intervened when a freight train with a door open showered my train with ballast. I've fixed a knackered HVAC unit that was cooking my passengers. I've noted a failed speedo in the rear cab and took action to get us diverted before a reversal point where we'd be stranded. I've had a passenger board the train in a puddle of blood having nicked an artery in an ulcerated foot and released the first aid box and taken appropriate action. A colleague has looked after passengers and their driver when a suicidal person's corpse smashed into the driving cab and prevented the driver from leaving it, while they were understandably having a meltdown.

In short - we are jacks of all trades who have to deal with every eventuality and I find it irritating that folk are so blasé about watering down our role/getting shot of us.

Very good justification of your role.

The elephant in the room is still that guards are operationally less "essential" than drivers and easier to dispense with. Guards and drivers have been artificially separated largely because historically, in the days of steam, there was little or no physical link on the train between driver and guard and the driver's role was so all consuming that he had an assistant. This is no longer the case. If today's driver and guard were all regarded as train crew and were more often than not interchangeable, that would give additional flexibility at a stroke - and no excuse for abolishing the guard.
So seems to me that in order to save the guard the guards and drivers of the world have to unite!

 

[455driver]

As Yorkie was unwilling/unable to answer any of these questions would anyone else like to have a go?

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?

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

 

[8J]

As Yorkie was unwilling/unable to answer any of these questions would anyone else like to have a go?

Is DOO safer than crew working, yes or no? NO

Would you be happy travelling on a train from London to Cardiff with just a driver on board? NO

Can anyone state categorically what these extra on board staff (which FGW keep mentioning) are actually going to do? NO which is odd.

455 Driver you talk sense sir, I however know that you and others who do are a minority on this forum.

 

[ainsworth74]

As Yorkie was unwilling/unable to answer any of these questions would anyone else like to have a go?

I'll have a crack (for better or worse ):

Is DOO safer than crew working, yes or no?

My personal opinion is that it is not safer but that it is equally not inherently any less safe with the appropriate safety features in place.

I really wish that someone would provide some verifiable statistics for either side of the argument.

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

If the plan was to have services diagrammed to not have any other members of staff (so no catering crew or TMs) I would not be happy. If it came about because of disruption or staff unavailability and the TOC in question would be fined for every train which ran without a TM (like Strathclyde) then I would not be happy but I wouldn't refuse to travel.

My concern with this proposal for FGW is, as I think I've said, that there appears to be no penalty for FGW (or a future TOC) to run without TMs. Therefore there appears to be nothing really stopping them from just phasing TMs out over the following years.

It needs to be a franchise requirement that every train has a TM diagrammed and if that train runs without a TM then the TOC will be fined. I would go further and specify that if TM-less services reach a specific level then the TOC would face additional even heavier fines and the potential of losing their franchise.

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

Not the foggiest and I don't know why you'd think anyone on here would know? I would guess the intention is that they will check and sell tickets, deal with wheelchair ramps, respond to PASSCOM activations and focus on customer service. But that's a guess.

 

[Carlisle]

It needs to be a franchise requirement that every train has a TM diagrammed and if that train runs without a TM then the TOC will be fined. I would go further and specify that if TM-less services reach a specific level then the TOC would face additional even heavier fines and the potential of losing their franchise.

I totally agree ,what if the DFT confirmed that type of system would be brought in maybe in 1-2 years ? possibly to bring it in immediately on top of the recruitment, training and possible strike costs have been deemed unaffordable by FGW if it's mainly the DFT leaning on them to make these changes

 

[Bletchleyite]

So seems to me that in order to save the guard the guards and drivers of the world have to unite!

Except that drivers earn much more than guards, so if they were to be brought up to the same level a guard would be unaffordable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is DOO safer than crew working, yes or no? NO

Agree, no. However it is safer that most other modes of transport, certainly all private road transport. And DOO dispatch *may* be safer than a guard dispatch without a droplight to allow the guard to watch the train out of the platform, though that safety benefit could be provided by giving the driver a rear view mirror or similar to allow additional checks but retaining the guard.

Therefore I would say it is adequately safe. If it allows for fare cuts (or avoids increases) such that more people will transfer from road to rail, the overall safety effect on the country's transport system could well be positive.

Would you be happy travelling on a train from London to Cardiff with just a driver on board? NO

From a safety point of view yes. From a customer service point of view, it is better than IC services have guards, IMO. However, I would rather have a DOO train than have my train cancelled. I am reasonably happy with the idea of the guard losing door duties in favour of customer service duties provided penalties are such that operating without guards is only for extreme circumstances. So I would be satisfied with a Strathclyde style agreement, or driver-released doors as used on Voyagers.

I can't comment on what fGW's policy is, so I have snipped that.

 

[455driver]

I bin finkin!

All this talk of no TM during disruption is easily solved, have the driver and TM working the same trains all shift, full crew working I think its called, they sign on at (roughly*) the same time, work the same trains, have their breaks at the same time and finish at (roughly*) the same time.

'problem' solved!

* Roughly because the TMs will need to sign on a bit earlier to collect their ticket machine and sign off a bit later.

 

[Minilad]

From a safety point of view yes. From a customer service point of view, it is better than IC services have guards, IMO. However, I would rather have a DOO train than have my train cancelled. I am reasonably happy with the idea of the guard losing door duties in favour of customer service duties provided penalties are such that operating without guards is only for extreme circumstances. So I would be satisfied with a Strathclyde style agreement, or driver-released doors as used on Voyagers.

I can't comment on what fGW's policy is, so I have snipped that.

Pretty sure you wouldn't like the driver released doors on a Voyager once you got to the first station and then had to stop. The guard is responsible for telling the driver when to shut them again. So without a guard you would go no further

 

[muz379]

Therefore I would say it is adequately safe. If it allows for fare cuts (or avoids increases) such that more people will transfer from road to rail, the overall safety effect on the country's transport system could well be positive.

Anybody that thinks that DOO is going to lead to fare cuts is simply deluded . And anybody that things that fare increases are going to be slowed down by the advent of DOO is also similarly deluded .

 

[EvoIV]

I find the following document about risk assessing the introduction of DOO(p) from RSSB interesting, and not necessarily in a good way:

http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/2014-tsd--worked-example-doo-p.pdf

Edit: As does this document:

http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/improving-industry-performance/2015-01-platform-train-interface-strategy.pdf

 

[yorkie]

Oh look, it's the fact vs opinion issue again! What about the huge number of passenger journeys made in London and the South East with a Guard, and the large number of passenger journeys made in other metropolitan areas with a Guard?

What about them?

Anybody that thinks that DOO is going to lead to fare cuts is simply deluded . And anybody that things that fare increases are going to be slowed down by the advent of DOO is also similarly deluded .

It won't lead to fare cuts.

The railways are costing Government far more than they're comfortable with, and it's going to be a case of shutting down some lines, or cutting back timetables if costs are not reduced. This would force people onto buses, which I think are less safe than DOO trains, but I know we don't all agree on that.

I find the following document about risk assessing the introduction of DOO(p) from RSSB interesting, and not necessarily in a good way:

http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/2014-tsd--worked-example-doo-p.pdf

Here's a quote regarding the safety aspect:

Safety considerations

The RU also considers the safety impacts of the
proposed changes to determine whether the system
can be made acceptably safe if they extended
DOO(p) throughout their operations.

RSSB had previously done a research project to
develop safety arguments for the introduction of
DOO(p) by applying the CSM RA process to a
representative railway operation as a template for
various other RUs. The RU adapts these arguments
for their operations using workshops which include
safety experts and staff with operational experience
to consider specific local factors, such as the
characteristics of each platform, and any additional
appropriate safety measures that they will need to
implement.

The study gives the RU confidence that they are
capable of implementing DOO(p) safely, and indeed
many workshop participants consider it to be
marginally safer than operations with doors operated
by guards in certain circumstances. Overall, the
change in safety and therefore the monetised value
of any safety benefits are considered to be relatively
small.

The various costs and benefits from the studies are
summarised to inform the decision of whether to
extend DOO(p), both in terms of the issues that will
need to be considered for explicit risk assessment
under the CSM RA if the change goes ahead using
the criterion of So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable
(SFAIRP), and the wider business case (Table 1).
Both approaches support the conclusion that it is
feasible to extend DOO(p) as there is likely to be
both a financial benefit over the franchise period and
the system post change can be made acceptably
safe. Operational benefits are also identified,
including a more reliable service and increased
staffing flexibility. Therefore the RU decides to
proceed with extending DOO(p) on all its services to
improve performance and reduce costs in the long
term.

So, whether any of us like it or not, it is considered acceptably safe.

For the record, I'd be more than happy if the road budget was slashed so we didn't get so so many new roads and instead we had a Guard on every train, and every station staffed, and so on. Sadly that isn't a realistic hope.

 

[notadriver]

Buses are just as safe as trains - but in the main they are a lot slower.

 

[muz379]

The railways are costing Government far more than they're comfortable with, and it's going to be a case of shutting down some lines, or cutting back timetables if costs are not reduced. This would force people onto buses, which I think are less safe than DOO trains, but I know we don't all agree on that.

You know this for a fact ?

Surely if the lines are that quiet that they are candidates for closure the number of people who will now have to use busses that are less safe are so small it wont make any real difference ?

 

[yorkie]

Buses are just as safe as trains - but in the main they are a lot slower.

I've seen several reports stating rail is safer, I don't recall ever seeing any that have stated buses are just as safe. I'm happy to agree to disagree though.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/disdocs/railwaydd.pdf

Comparison of fatality rates across different modes of transport (Table 1) shows the well-known substantial differences between public and private transport, and indicates that the risk of a passenger fatality per journey or per hour travelled is about 3 times lower for bus/coach travel than for rail.

You know this for a fact ?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ealising-the-potential-of-gb-rail-summary.pdf

In my Interim Submission to the Secretary of State, published last December, I set out a preliminary assessment of the costs of GB rail, the reasons why those costs appeared to be higher than they should be...

... there is widespread recognition that the industry has problems in terms of efficiency and costs. ...

...The causes of GB rail’s excessively high costs are many and complex....

...the pressures which make change and the achievement of this cost reduction essential are obvious. The severe constraints on Governments’ finances will continue for some time, and there will be intense financial scrutiny ...

I am not saying I agree with it, but it's a fact that there is a desire for the subsidy the rail industry enjoys to be reduced.

Surely if the lines are that quiet that they are candidates for closure the number of people who will now have to use buses that are less safe are so small it wont make any real difference ?

Are you saying that if the choice was between implementing the proposals to reduce costs or closures, you'd pick the latter?

We all have our right to our opinions, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[muz379]

I am not saying I agree with it, but it's a fact that there is a desire for the subsidy the rail industry enjoys to be reduced.

I personally think there are other ways that subsidy could be reduced and there is a lot of debate to be had about the amount of subsidy and if in fact the subsidy is at an unacceptable level but that is a debate for another time and place . But you are quite right it is a fact that there currently an appetite to cut spending and the two biggest parties are both campaigning to reduce spending to eliminate the deficit .

My only question is though , do you really think if that desire is not met the DFT will just start closing down lesser used lines (if there are any left) I mean the last government failed to meet its deficit reduction targets but the world didn't implode and the government didn't just stop spending money once it had reached its self imposed spending limits .

Are you saying that if the choice was between implementing the proposals to reduce costs or closures, you'd pick the latter?

We all have our right to our opinions, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Im more trying to say that in the case of FGW there aren't any lines that are currently operated by HST's that would be candidates for closure to reduce subsidy if guards had to be retained because the ORR would not allow operation without them for example . (I know the ORR dont actually posses that view )

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anybody that thinks that DOO is going to lead to fare cuts is simply deluded . And anybody that things that fare increases are going to be slowed down by the advent of DOO is also similarly deluded .

Why? If the railway's costs are lower, fare increases will not be as high.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Buses are just as safe as trains - but in the main they are a lot slower.

So do you think a driver-only operated bus (which is basically the only type in the UK, except for Boris buses and a *very* small number of coaches, and on Boris buses the conductor does not do the doors, though I suppose technically he does dispatch the bus) is safer than a DOO train?

If so, why?

Personally, if the choice is between a DOO train and a DOO bus, I'd go for the train every time. Much safer.

You could say both are adequately safe, with which I would agree - I have no significant safety concerns about travelling on any mode of public transport in the UK. But then that would surely mean a DOO train and a non-DOO train are both adequately safe, even if a non-DOO train is marginally safer.

 

[455driver]

Why? If the railway's costs are lower, fare increases will not be as high.

You think?

The money saved would just go to the shareholders!

Of course as this proposal includes more on board staff I fail to see where these magical savings are coming from!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Im more trying to say that in the case of FGW there aren't any lines that are currently operated by HST's that would be candidates for closure to reduce subsidy if guards had to be retained because the ORR would not allow operation without them for example . (I know the ORR dont actually posses that view )

But FGW is not presently proposing to remove a second member of staff from trains in normal operation. They are proposing to change duties, and to run trains in DOO mode where presently they would be cancelled due to no guard. Which is basically the situation under the Strathclyde manning agreement, which *does* work.

Whether you believe them or not is a separate argument, of course. But if you look to somewhere like Switzerland, DOO is the norm on rural and regional services, but DOO is not used on intercity type services - there is a second member of staff, whether they happen to do the doors or not. I don't see why here would be any different. I just cannot see FGW running IC trains with only one member of staff on board, even if it happens that they could, unless cancelling the train was the only other option. And as a passenger, I'd rather have a train with one member of staff on board than no train, where the alternative might be to drive, which is *far* less safe.

 

[PermitToTravel]

So do you think a driver-only operated bus (which is basically the only type in the UK, except for Boris buses

There are still Routemasters in operation in London

 

[Bletchleyite]

You think?

The money saved would just go to the shareholders!

I'm not convinced it realistically would. Though it might well go to reducing subsidy (and thus to the Government).

Of course as this proposal includes more on board staff I fail to see where these magical savings are coming from!

In that case (the case of believing what FGW are saying) what is the objection?