W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[455driver]

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.

That's because you are naïve and don't have a clue what you are talking about!

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are still Routemasters in operation in London

Sorry, forgot those. There are what, fewer than 10 of them operating on two routes? They are a tourist curiosity, not a serious safety case.

FWIW I have once been on a RM without a conductor (about 10 years ago). I have no idea where he went, but he was definitely absent! I bet there was trouble over that.

 

[yorkie]

You think?

The money saved would just go to the shareholders!

If the Government decides to reduce the subsidy given to rail, which appears to be the aim, then any savings would offset that.

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

Purely answering the issue of revenue, if you have more on-board staff who spend more of their time checking and selling tickets, that would surely see revenues increased, and see a reduction in cases such as Wrexham to Edinburgh first class - no ticket check, which contrast with the experiences on, say, Southeastern HS1 or Strathcylde electric services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's because you are naïve and don't have a clue what you are talking about!

Under the Strathclyde manning agreement, do ScotRail run trains without conductors (with no dispatch duties) because they feel like?

The answer to this is no; their franchise agreement provides for heavy penalties if they do.

So why would FGW be any different? We aren't talking about commuter DOO here.

 

[PermitToTravel]

FWIW I have once been on a RM without a conductor (about 10 years ago). I have no idea where he went, but he was definitely absent! I bet there was trouble over that.

hock: that's not okay!

Under the Strathclyde manning agreement, do ScotRail run trains without conductors (with no dispatch duties) because they feel like?

The answer to this is no; their franchise agreement provides for heavy penalties if they do.

So why would FGW be any different? We aren't talking about commuter DOO here.

It would be different because there has been no official proposal for a Strathclyde-esque arrangement for FGW.

 

[455driver]

Purely answering the issue of revenue, if you have more on-board staff who spend more of their time checking and selling tickets, that would surely see revenues increased, and see a reduction in cases such as Wrexham to Edinburgh first class - no ticket check, which contrast with the experiences on, say, Southeastern HS1 or Strathcylde electric services.

How much ticketless travel (which isn't already being dealt with) do you think there is on long distance services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be different because there has been no official proposal for a Strathclyde-esque arrangement for FGW.

Ah, I thought there had; it certainly sounds similar. Apologies.

 

[455driver]

Under the Strathclyde manning agreement, do ScotRail run trains without conductors (with no dispatch duties) because they feel like?

The answer to this is no; their franchise agreement provides for heavy penalties if they do.

So why would FGW be any different? We aren't talking about commuter DOO here.

The answer to Strathclyde is yes they did but were only pulled up on it when they started running about a third of services without a ticket examiner on board.

As ensuring every FGW train had a TM on board would add to the cost then I can see GW being allowed to run without one routinely simply to save money, otherwise there are no savings!

 

[yorkie]

How much ticketless travel (which isn't already being dealt with) do you think there is on long distance services?

Based on Flamingo's posts, there seems to be a lot of issues (not just 'ticketless' but not a totally valid ticket) that he detects that otherwise goes unnoticed or undetected or unchallenged by the majority of Guards (after all, revenue is not their priority), as well as the more frequent stops on these services when you get further from London, with Guards potentially having to be at specific places at each stop (so may be unable to walk the full length of the train), not everyone is going to be reachable. Barriers don't always solve these problems either (see Flamingo's references to Grangetown!)

OK, so you think there will be no savings, but that's FGW's problem if that turns out to be the case, not yours?

 

[ainsworth74]

The answer to Strathclyde is yes they did but were only pulled up on it when they started running about a third of services without a ticket examiner on board.

As ensuring every FGW train had a TM on board would add to the cost then I can see GW being allowed to run without one routinely simply to save money, otherwise there are no savings!

This is my concern.

Experience with Strathclyde indicates that some manner of penalty is needed to make sure the TOC doesn't cheat the system. At present there appears to be no penalty therefore I wonder how long it will be until we start to see an increasing number of services without a TM simply because there aren't enough to cover all the services any more.

 

[the sniper]

Based on Flamingo's posts, there seems to be a lot of issues (not just 'ticketless' but not a totally valid ticket) that he detects that otherwise goes unnoticed or undetected or unchallenged by the majority of Guards (after all, revenue is not their priority), as well as the more frequent stops on these services when you get further from London, with Guards potentially having to be at specific places at each stop (so may be unable to walk the full length of the train), not everyone is going to be reachable. Barriers don't always solve these problems either (see Flamingo's references to Grangetown!)

Guards not doing tickets isn't solely down to doing doors though, neither is it just because they are too lazy to do them. Many TOCs number one policy around doing tickets is to 'avoid conflict'... How the heck do you check tickets, challenge people with non-valid tickets, whether deliberate or not, or get money out of druggies, drunks and yobbos, without getting into conflict...?! If you use the powers you're given under the byelaws to enforce anything the BTP will probably commend you while your TOC tries to sack you! Even if this wasn't the case, how can lone Guards be expected to deal with these people while RPIs normally patrol in at least pairs for safety. Now, I'm looking at this from an urban/suburban point of view, but you get these situations on all trains. I can't see this is going change by converting Guards to lone TMs/Ticket Inspectors, other than these TMs being more conveniently dispensable (operationally) than Guards should things go wrong.

Another thing I'd say is that people on this forum and many of the fare paying public care far, far more about revenue protection than most TOCs do. Revenue collection/protection is considered an expensive luxury by many TOCs, particularly where it involves having to pay someone's wages to do it. Some of us have seen Clerical, Booking Office and Revenue Protection grades almost wiped out in our TOC when they have wanted to cut costs, as such many of us Guards know that we're next to be disposed of once we're no longer operationally required and have no power to influence any decision making. Some members here might think that we'll justify our post Guard existence by selling Tickets and Kit Kats, but most TOCs most assuredly won't and I doubt the DfT will in the longer term. Right or wrong, the only person you need on a DOO train is the Driver, anything else is a luxury.

 

[muz379]

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.

I can see FGW tightening up TM diagrams though so that it is seen as fair game if one of them has to miss part of their job so they can have their break . Or if they are no longer safety critical maybe they can just have their break on board and not actually complete any revenue duties for part of a journey .

I can also see why FGW would do away with rest day work to cover both planned and unplanned absences . Why pay for someone to come in and do someones job you are already paying someone to do if you can avoid it .

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

You are naive if you actually believe that .

If the Government decides to reduce the subsidy given to rail, which appears to be the aim, then any savings would offset that.

Purely answering the issue of revenue, if you have more on-board staff who spend more of their time checking and selling tickets, that would surely see revenues increased, and see a reduction in cases such as Wrexham to Edinburgh first class - no ticket check, which contrast with the experiences on, say, Southeastern HS1 or Strathcylde electric services.

Indeed Wrexham to Edinburgh with no ticket check is quite a shocker , interesting how the first two posts after the OP on that thread are from guards who also think that this is a poor show on behalf of the traincrew . Im sure there will be Strathclyde or HS1 services where passengers haven't had their tickets checked in the past . You act as if the experience in that thread is a regular one experienced by passengers who travel on services with a conventional guard who has to do the doors .

Based on Flamingo's posts, there seems to be a lot of issues (not just 'ticketless' but not a totally valid ticket) that he detects that otherwise goes unnoticed or undetected or unchallenged by the majority of Guards (after all, revenue is not their priority), as well as the more frequent stops on these services when you get further from London, with Guards potentially having to be at specific places at each stop (so may be unable to walk the full length of the train), not everyone is going to be reachable. Barriers don't always solve these problems either (see Flamingo's references to Grangetown!)

Taking out those 2 minutes the guard has to position themselves at the correct position on the train isnt going to suddenly mean they can sell loads more tickets and get every passenger on services that stop that frequently .

Guards not doing tickets isn't solely down to doing doors though, neither is it just because they are too lazy to do them. Many TOCs number one policy around doing tickets is to 'avoid conflict'... How the heck do you check tickets, challenge people with non-valid tickets, whether deliberate or not, or get money out of druggies, drunks and yobbos, without getting into conflict...?! If you use the powers you're given under the byelaws to enforce anything the BTP will probably commend you while your TOC tries to sack you! Even if this wasn't the case, how can lone Guards be expected to deal with these people while RPIs normally patrol in at least pairs for safety. Now, I'm looking at this from an urban/suburban point of view, but you get these situations on all trains. I can't see this is going change by converting Guards to lone TMs/Ticket Inspectors, other than these TMs being more conveniently dispensable (operationally) than Guards should things go wrong.

This is an important point . I dont think suddenly removing door duties from guards are going to make staff more likely to want to get into confrontations and possibly assaulted .

As much as non rail staff members on here take a dim view of guards who turn a blind eye to ticketless travel or wont challenge people with invalid tickets its often done for the very simple reason that we are told countless times by our TOCs not to engage in conflict and to employ conflict avoidance techniques . This translates to leave them to it because if it does go wrong and you get assaulted you will get asked "how could the situation have been handled better " . Me no longer dispatching the train at stations is not going to change my attitude towards revenue protection . And in fact devaluing the job is actually going to hurt morale which means more blind eyes turned from staff who feel less valued .

 

[Flamingo]

Guards not doing tickets isn't solely down to doing doors though, neither is it just because they are too lazy to do them. Many TOCs number one policy around doing tickets is to 'avoid conflict'... How the heck do you check tickets, challenge people with non-valid tickets, whether deliberate or not, or get money out of druggies, drunks and yobbos, without getting into conflict...?! If you use the powers you're given under the byelaws to enforce anything the BTP will probably commend you while your TOC tries to sack you! Even if this wasn't the case, how can lone Guards be expected to deal with these people while RPIs normally patrol in at least pairs for safety. Now, I'm looking at this from an urban/suburban point of view, but you get these situations on all trains. I can't see this is going change by converting Guards to lone TMs/Ticket Inspectors, other than these TMs being more conveniently dispensable (operationally) than Guards should things go wrong.

Another thing I'd say is that people on this forum and many of the fare paying public care far, far more about revenue protection than most TOCs do. Revenue collection/protection is considered an expensive luxury by many TOCs, particularly where it involves having to pay someone's wages to do it. Some of us have seen Clerical, Booking Office and Revenue Protection grades almost wiped out in our TOC when they have wanted to cut costs, as such many of us Guards know that we're next to be disposed of once we're no longer operationally required and have no power to influence any decision making. Some members here might think that we'll justify our post Guard existence by selling Tickets and Kit Kats, but most TOCs most assuredly won't and I doubt the DfT will in the longer term. Right or wrong, the only person you need on a DOO train is the Driver, anything else is a luxury.

Exactly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Based on Flamingo's posts, there seems to be a lot of issues (not just 'ticketless' but not a totally valid ticket) that he detects that otherwise goes unnoticed or undetected or unchallenged by the majority of Guards (after all, revenue is not their priority), as well as the more frequent stops on these services when you get further from London, with Guards potentially having to be at specific places at each stop (so may be unable to walk the full length of the train), not everyone is going to be reachable. Barriers don't always solve these problems either (see Flamingo's references to Grangetown!)

OK, so you think there will be no savings, but that's FGW's problem if that turns out to be the case, not yours?

So putting ATE's on trains and increasing barrier checks would already solve a lot these problems in the situations where they can be solved. In a lot of situations, however, it would not only take a BTP patrol, but a willingness of TOC's (and the Disputes area of this forum) to deal with the delays, conflict, disruption and complaints that would result...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

The letter is carefully worded. It says a TM (not Guard) will be diagrammed for each train, and there is no mention of what disruption is considered to be.

Because at present the train won't run at all, it is very rare for an Intercity service to be cancelled due to lack of a guard, heaven and earth will be shifted to get one. In the future, do you think that will happen?

 

[Fincra5]

If the Government decides to reduce the subsidy given to rail, which appears to be the aim, then any savings would offset that.

Purely answering the issue of revenue, if you have more on-board staff who spend more of their time checking and selling tickets, that would surely see revenues increased, and see a reduction in cases such as Wrexham to Edinburgh first class - no ticket check, which contrast with the experiences on, say, Southeastern HS1 or Strathcylde electric services.

Do you really think if the TM's are just customer service that they'll check tickets more? Laughable...

You can get on trains where you'll be checked by a conductor and sometimes you won't. What if the conductor has already checked that bit of the train?

Walking up and down on a busy train constantly is just annoying for passengers and staff, moving people out the way, vaulting over luggage, etc, etc.

- SO when the FGW has to run DOO due to no TM (etc) will there be a complaint thread the ticket wasn't checked? How would you even know there wasn't a TM? -

 

[yorkie]

Do you really think if the TM's are just customer service that they'll check tickets more? Laughable...

Go on some Strathclyde electric DOO trains, or Southeastern High Speed 1, and see for yourself.

 

[craigybagel]

So under DOO the trains won't be any safer (theyll probably be less safe but I'm not banging my head against that wall any more), they won't be much quicker, they won't reduce ticketless travel very much, and they won't see fares come down.

So what will improve? Theoretically there will be less cancellations as trains can run without a TM in disruption, but how often is that currently an issue at FGW? If their rostering clerks are anything like ours then its very rare indeed. And of those few times when it is an issue, what are the chances of there being no driver either?

Other than that, the only people who stand to gain here are shareholders.

And whilst I'm sure they're lovely people, as guards we are taught that our first priority is ourselves, and then our passengers, safety. So forgive us if we don't greet a DOO proposal with open arms!

 

[Fincra5]

So under DOO the trains won't be any safer (theyll probably be less safe but I'm not banging my head against that wall any more), they won't be much quicker, they won't reduce ticketless travel very much, and they won't see fares come down.

So what will improve? Theoretically there will be less cancellations as trains can run without a TM in disruption, but how often is that currently an issue at FGW? If their rostering clerks are anything like ours then its very rare indeed. And of those few times when it is an issue, what are the chances of there being no driver either?

Other than that, the only people who stand to gain here are shareholders.

And whilst I'm sure they're lovely people, as guards we are taught that our first priority is ourselves, and then our passengers, safety. So forgive us if we don't greet a DOO proposal with open arms!

As you say with the cancellations... FGW TM's should still dispatch as per the normal, with the exception that a train can run DOO to meet the TM during disruption.

A similar style to that Southern use when the conductor is misplaced (ignoring non-DOO cleared routes)

and @Yorkie, when I went on a HS1 train the OBM did a ticket check once (between Stratford and Ebbsfleet), when I was on until Rochester. So whats the difference? Hardly an improvement on when a conductor works a train as normal.

 

[yorkie]

when I went on a HS1 train the OBM did a ticket check once (between Stratford and Ebbsfleet), when I was on until Rochester. So whats the difference? Hardly an improvement on when a conductor works a train as normal.

Do the OBMs stay on past HS1? I've also experienced similar; the ticket checks only seem to occur (in my limited experience - which matches yours but others may be different) on the HS1 part of the journey.

 

[PermitToTravel]

The letter is carefully worded. It says a TM (not Guard) will be diagrammed for each train

That's a very good point that I don't think's been mentioned anywhere else in the thread - to comply with their promises in the letter, while needing to diagram an indeterminate TM to each train, they wouldn't actually need to even attempt to find a TM to roster the diagrams to

 

[Fincra5]

Do the OBMs stay on past HS1? I've also experienced similar; the ticket checks only seem to occur (in my limited experience - which matches yours but others may be different) on the HS1 part of the journey.

I believe that an OBM has to be on the train the whole time in service. I'm sure someone can clarify.

 

[PermitToTravel]

I believe that an OBM has to be on the train the whole time in service. I'm sure someone can clarify.

Don't they turn into a normal guard on the classic lines (and later back into an OBM if on a train going around the loop)?

 

[LateThanNever]

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.

Am aware of that, but if rail turns over a new leaf and treats drivers and guards as pilot and co-pilot - as it were - then jobs would be saved. Without that, with each in different unions it is, admittedly, a long shot. But, for those drivers who want the guard to remain it's a pay freeze for a few years. Will they put their money where their mouths are?

So under DOO the trains won't be any safer (theyll probably be less safe but I'm not banging my head against that wall any more), they won't be much quicker, they won't reduce ticketless travel very much, and they won't see fares come down.

So what will improve? Theoretically there will be less cancellations as trains can run without a TM in disruption, but how often is that currently an issue at FGW? If their rostering clerks are anything like ours then its very rare indeed. And of those few times when it is an issue, what are the chances of there being no driver either?

Other than that, the only people who stand to gain here are shareholders.

And whilst I'm sure they're lovely people, as guards we are taught that our first priority is ourselves, and then our passengers, safety. So forgive us if we don't greet a DOO proposal with open arms!

Entirely forgiven - but there ia a need to get drivers on your side!



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.

But those figures were 1997 - 2001. They've improved in rail's favour since. And if we used the bus we'd never get anywhere. 21 hours travelling on the train before a fatality whereas only 7 hours on the bus (by which time I'm usually ready to die anyway)

 

[PermitToTravel]

21 hours travelling on the train before a fatality whereas only 7 hours on the bus (by which time I'm usually ready to die anyway)

21 billion hours and 7 billion hours, respectively - we've all spent over 21h on trains and over 7h on buses and most of us haven't died from the experience.

 

[Carlisle]

Don't they turn into a normal guard on the classic lines (and later back into an OBM if on a train going around the loop)?

Unless it's changed they stay the same role throughout and have to be on all trains

 

[LateThanNever]

21 billion hours and 7 billion hours, respectively - we've all spent over 21h on trains and over 7h on buses and most of us haven't died from the experience.

But if a billion of us had we would have

 

[craigybagel]

Entirely forgiven - but there ia a need to get drivers on your side!

Very true. I suspect they are at the moment, and the actions by ASLEF so far backs that up, but the question is how far will they go? That may well end up being the deciding factor in this.

 

[Carlisle]

Very true. I suspect they are at the moment, and the actions by ASLEF so far backs that up, but the question is how far will they go? That may well end up being the deciding factor in this.

I know many of you will disagree but I think some kind of compromise between sides would be the best eventual outcome here. If the unions are able to simply crush everything achieving total outright victory over the management then past industrial history doesn't suggest this would leave the rail industry in the best of health for the longer term future, (if one is bothered about that)

 

[martynbristow]

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

Just to clarify, its been quoted that road is safer from the above document by taking the coach figure.
The figures are actually:
Rail 0.4
Coaches: 0.3
Not 21(rail) and 7 (coach).
Passenger fatalities per billion passenger km.
You should ONLY take the km value otherwise the values aren't consistent.
For example if your thinking of travelling to London to danger should be the distance to London and not journey time.

Given the values are so close and the serious issues regarding rail which have been rectified I think its safe to say rail is SAFER

 

[Flamingo]

That's a very good point that I don't think's been mentioned anywhere else in the thread - to comply with their promises in the letter, while needing to diagram an indeterminate TM to each train, they wouldn't actually need to even attempt to find a TM to roster the diagrams to

The devil is in the detail...

 

[455driver]

I know many of you will disagree but I think some kind of compromise between sides would be the best eventual outcome here. If the unions are able to simply crush everything achieving total outright victory over the management then past industrial history doesn't suggest this would leave the rail industry in the best of health for the longer term future, (if one is bothered about that)

Compromise?
Are you serious?

FGW want to downgrade the guards role (with the drivers picking up the dropped bits) so the Company can make a bit more money* for the shareholders and you want us to compromise!

* I still fail to see (from the snippets of information made public) where these savings are coming from!

The union is there to protect their members, ie the staff, and are more than happy to agree to changes which are a genuine improvement, unfortunately none of the unions (or rail staff) see this issue as an improvement!