W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[the sniper]

But Scotland has a manning agreement. FGW don't. Just their word and God knows what else afterwards. There is no real guarantee after 2019 that staff will still be on these trains. If we had such an agreement in place, with firm rules in place as to when these trains can run fully DOO, written in stone, then I'd happily accept it.

Personally if that choice came where I was I wouldn't support it. Surely any agreement would be worthless once the franchise ended. If a new MD came along and wanted to make big impressive cost savings could any agreement be fully watertight, even within the duration of the franchise? After all, who gives a crap if you strike in an act of defiance, a few less Kit Kats will be sold but the trains will keep running without you. That is the point of this expensive exercise. I've seen too many non safety critical grades virtually obliterated in recurring rounds of cost cutting to believe that management won't eventually wipe out what would be an expensive, non-essential grade.

If you agree to the principle that your trains can be worked without you by your drivers under DOO, you are, in the medium to long term, signing your own grade's death sentence, IMO.

 

[regulation9]

FGW wont give any straight answers to the questions they are being asked, they are sort of answering some questions but those answers are open to conjecture and certainly don't give a definitive, clear answer.

Every train will have a TM rostered! Is that on the base roster or daily roster and what exactly is a TM, it doesn't say train manager on anything I have read, for all we know it could be ticket monitor. These are the type of question they are refusing to answer! This question has been put directly to them and the reply was the usual 500 words which didn't answer it at all.

We were all sent a leaflet about the proposals and one of the driver went through it highlighting all the unanswered bits or bits open to interpretation, there was an awful lot of his writing on the form!

I do have some sympathy with FGW over this though. If the RMT's position is that there must be a fully qualified Guard on all trains at all times it is a bit difficult to negotiate with them on the detail of an alternative proposal! I thought what FGW had proposed was quite clear actually. Maybe FGW would have moved further if the negotiation had been a bit more open minded.

 

[455driver]

I do have some sympathy with FGW over this though. If the RMT's position is that there must be a fully qualified Guard on all trains at all times it is a bit difficult to negotiate with them on the detail of an alternative proposal! I thought what FGW had proposed was quite clear actually. Maybe FGW would have moved further if the negotiation had been a bit more open minded.

Really?
A lot of us would disagree with you!

 

[bnm]

If all these issues are so important to the staff, and not just the RMT rabble-rousers, why was there only a 50% turnout?

 

[thelongestroad]

If all these issues are so important to the staff, and not just the RMT rabble-rousers, why was there only a 50% turnout?

Probably because it was an all RMT FGW grades ballot and there are a number that it wouldn't directly affect. I suspect the turn of of train crew and depot staff was fairly high.

 

[bnm]

So no solidarity among colleagues then?

 

[BestWestern]

To clarify the point regarding Train Managers; FGW has expended a considerable degree of effort attempting to soothe concerns about the future of the Train Manager/Conductor (i.e. Guard) role. Much remains unclear. What is clear is that the intention is for a DOO railway. There has been much attempt at avoiding an outright acknowledgement of that rather significant detail, not least in the sudden emergence of the term 'DCO' ("Driver Controlled Operation"), which makes no difference to the situation. The simple fact is that the company wishes to move from the current situation of operating West and High Speed services with a safety critical Guard responsible for dispatch and competent in emergency protection, to a very different situation where there is potentially no Guard at all. The constant talk of retaining Train Managers and diagramming one for every service, etc etc, provides ABSOLUTELY NO LONG TERM GUARANTEES WHATSOEVER - the company has simultaneously stated that it wishes to be able to run without one, and where they are provided they will be little more than customer service personnel with a much diminished safety role. The Driver will operate the train on the principles of DOO.

This causes concern for two main reasons. Firstly, it is a completely avoidable watering down of safety. Secondly, it is a major attack on the jobs, careers and futures of staff currently in the role. It is accepted that no guarantees can be offered of any sort beyond the end of this franchise - that is not very long. It is also accepted that the driving staff will recieve a substantial increase in salary should the desired measures be put into place. Common sense suggests that if the end result is cost saving, and one staff grade is to receive a large pay rise, then savings will be required elsewhere. The argument that "don't worry, you'll still have your pay and conditions", starts to look rather shaky when one looks beyond the short term promises and considers the obvious realities of the situation.

This action is completely justified. Over at Virgin East Coast, the very same new trains are on their way and the management have given an assurance that they will continue to be operated with a Driver and a Guard. FGW have the option of considering that a similar arrangement is perfectly acceptable on their network. The staff have made it quite clear that standing by and doing nothing while jobs are needlessly decimated is not an acceptable option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This action is completely justified. Over at Virgin East Coast, the very same new trains are on their way and the management have given an assurance that they will continue to be operated with a Driver and a Guard. FGW have the option of considering that a similar arrangement is perfectly acceptable on their network. Statements such as 'We have to operate DOO because the trains are built that way' are dishonest and an insult to the intelligence of the workforce, who know very well that is blatantly untrue. Those staff have made it quite clear that standing by and doing nothing while jobs are needlessly decimated is not an acceptable option.

While they are operated as driver-*released* doors, does anyone know if Voyagers were designed originally for DOO? They only have signal buzzers and local door throughout the train, and the door closure is triggered by the guard by giving 1-2 on the buzzer - the driver actually does it.

No reason, of course, that even a fully DOO unit couldn't be operated in that kind of way - a suitable and safe procedure just needs to be established and maybe some very minor changes made to the units if they don't have local door.

So fGW are wrong

 

[HH]

Common sense suggests that if the end result is cost saving, and one staff grade is to receive a large pay rise, then savings will be required elsewhere.

As I wrote in the other thread there are lots of benefits from DCO (used to distinguish it from DOO which is only a driver on board) and most of those are around increased income. It wouldn't make economic sense to remove staff from the mainline services, nor the rural ones either.

Of course the removal of the necessity of having a guard on board changes the position in any future disputes between management and guards, so it's only natural that guards should resist it. In the long run it's bound to have an effect on T&Cs.

 

[BestWestern]

As I wrote in the other thread there are lots of benefits from DCO (used to distinguish it from DOO which is only a driver on board) and most of those are around increased income. It wouldn't make economic sense to remove staff from the mainline services, nor the rural ones either.

Of course the removal of the necessity of having a guard on board changes the position in any future disputes between management and guards, so it's only natural that guards should resist it. In the long run it's bound to have an effect on T&Cs.

I'm sorry, but a train either has a Guard responsible for part of it's operation, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it is DOO. We can invent whatever other terms we like to try and sugarcoat it, but it is one or the other. The idea of 'there will be somebody else on the train' is a very poor excuse, and is irrelevent in this case anyway as FGW have demanded they be able to run 'with the Driver as the only member of staff on board' under circumstances of their choosing. There is the reality of your 'DCO' nonsense.

I would further resist the suggestion that 'it is safer' for a Driver to operate doors, when clearly it isn't. Control of doors and responsibility for dispatch offers needless distraction at the point when a Driver needs maximum concentration on the road ahead. It also offers significantly reduced safeguarding against the currently very fashionable 'Platform-Train Interface', as once the train is moving above a minimal speed the Driver ceases any observation of that area and simply continues to accelerate away. A person on board separately taking responsibility for that area (and given the appropriate facilities to adequately do so) is a far safer method of operation. This is called 'common sense' and is really rather obvious. It is worth pointing out that DOO (/DCO/whatever) is not overly popular amongst Drivers either, and for good reason.

Whilst it is unavoidable that DOO has become a misguided mission for the powers-that-be, it is irksome to have to counter the increasing degree of waffle and piffle being lined up in its defence as if it were fact.

Regarding terms and conditions, if Drivers are expected to receive in the region of £15 - £20k pay rises, there will be a need to cut severly elsewhere. The *insert chosen name of on-board customer service-only staff here* being able to sell a few extra tickets a month (we're talking about intercity trains here, leaving from largely barriered stations) is not going to recoup anything like the additional cost.

Any suggestion that DOO (or indeed "DCO") is not massively harmful to pretty much every job grade other than Driver, is utter nonsense. Those who favour it are of course perfectly entitled to do so, but please, save those of us on the receiving end of it the bulls**t.

 

[HH]

Drivers receiving a £15-20k pay rise? Do you have any evidence of this? Such a rise is unheard of. Putting it bluntly, if such a payment was to be made it would remove all possible economic benefit from going DCO (I shall continue to distinguish between the two, regardless of your thoughts on the matter - it's a simple way to distinguish between whether there is a second member of staff on board or not) because FGW are promising that they will not remove the Train Manager.

 

[SkinnyDave]

Drivers receiving a £15-20k pay rise? Do you have any evidence of this? Such a rise is unheard of. Putting it bluntly, if such a payment was to be made it would remove all possible economic benefit from going DCO (I shall continue to distinguish between the two, regardless of your thoughts on the matter - it's a simple way to distinguish between whether there is a second member of staff on board or not) because FGW are promising that they will not remove the Train Manager.

They are moving a huge part of the Train Manager's safety critical role and I as a driver do not want that to happen, I have enough to be concerning myself with especially coming in on a single yellow aspect. It is not a safe way of working and nothing any of you can say can get me as a driver to change my mind. Its a money saving/making exercise that could have dire consequences thats all it is

They are not getting rid of train manager I wonder what happens when some of them take their redundancy and natural wastage?? Will they be replaced?

 

[Flamingo]

Where did the "less than 50% turn-out" come from?

 

[Captain Chaos]

Where did the "less than 50% turn-out" come from?

That's what I've been wondering. I haven't seen any public release of this data yet?

 

[BestWestern]

Drivers receiving a £15-20k pay rise? Do you have any evidence of this? Such a rise is unheard of. Putting it bluntly, if such a payment was to be made it would remove all possible economic benefit from going DCO (I shall continue to distinguish between the two, regardless of your thoughts on the matter - it's a simple way to distinguish between whether there is a second member of staff on board or not) because FGW are promising that they will not remove the Train Manager.

A figure of £64k has been suggested; of course that isn't official, however the general understanding is that there would be a very substantial offering (this would likely be in the form of a 'harmonisation' package and thus encompassing additional aspects also). Either way, there will be plenty of money involved and that has to come from somewhere. The revenue gains you allude to earlier are far more relevant in the case of suburban DOO, and are of little significance on an intercity train stopping only every 20 minutes or so. In which case what we have is the suggestion that the current Guards will continue to be paid the same while just 'not doing doors' and very probably taking about the same in revenue. As I said previously, that doesn't add up. There is a new franchise not far away. You don't need to be a cynical genius to see where this is going.

Again, please bear in mind that FGW have explicitly stated their desire to operate without a Train Manager at certain times. That then, surely, means the ultimate baseline is DOO, regardless of any suggestion that we might be doing anything else!?

 

[Captain Chaos]

It's funny you mention drivers harmonisation. They've been unable to do it for years. From what I've heard, it's firmly back on the cards and a deal close. Funny that...

Wouldn't a harmonisation of terms and conditions result in HSS and West drivers having DOO Trojan horsed into their terms by virtue of the fact they have harmonised with LTV drivers? I don't know the complexities of all this in truth. But the drivers could be getting stitched up on this without realising...

 

[notadriver]

The iEP trains are based on Javelins already running DOD ( driver only dispatch) with an on board manager. My question is why wouldn't that work elsewhere ?

 

[hello]

The iEP trains are based on Javelins already running DOD ( driver only dispatch) with an on board manager. My question is why wouldn't that work elsewhere ?

i dont think anyone is suggesting it wont work, it isnt right thats the problem

 

[Flamingo]

To ALL FGW Members: RMT calls 48 hour strike from 18:30 on Wednesday 8 July 2015. For further information please visit RMT website http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/intercity-express-programme010715/

 

[bnm]

i dont think anyone is suggesting it wont work, it isnt right thats the problem

It works but isn't right? How so?

 

[NSEFAN]

It works but isn't right? How so?

Dragging up the DOO debate cliches again, all trains could be DOO with no other onboard staff, but just because it physically works doesn't means it's as safe. Ultimately the issue seems to be how much are people prepared to compromise on safety for reduced staffing costs? A train with two safety critical staff is inherently safer than a train with one, but seemingly nobody wants to pay for that level of safety anymore. I suspect that DOO of some form will probably be rolled out on the GWML as a trial to prove it can work, before making its way to other mainlines over time.

 

[craigybagel]

The iEP trains are based on Javelins already running DOD ( driver only dispatch) with an on board manager. My question is why wouldn't that work elsewhere ?

Not entirely relevant since FGW are proposing DOD with no on board manager. Sure, they say there will be one "diagrammed" on every train, but they want to have the option of running without one. Once that line is crossed, there's no going back.

That said, you could also make the point that some form of Driver and Guard operation is already running in FGW intercity services, and indeed on all long distance services across the country, so why couldn't they continue to do so?

 

[island]

This is going around in circles. Either working with guards is safer than working DOO, or it is not. Nobody has cited any study or empirical evidence one way or another, so I suspect none exists. Which is fine, or would be if the "DOO is fine" and "DOO is less safe/unsafe/a pox on society" sides would cease repeatedly asserting their points at one another.

 

[Carlisle]

Again, please bear in mind that FGW have explicitly stated their desire to operate without a Train Manager at certain times. That then, surely, means the ultimate baseline is DOO, regardless of any suggestion that we might be doing anything else!?

Isn't that more the unions position than reality, as certainly up to today anyway no country in the world operates its long distance Inter City trains with no onboard staff present as a general policy, unless you know otherwise,even countries like Ireland where virtually all domestic trains have been technically DOO for many years now doesn't

 

[notadriver]

How about this : On the basis that the only DOO trains in this country operate at 100 mph maximum we could insist that ANY train that has a maximum speed of more than 100 mph must have another safety critical member of staff aboard in addition to the driver. That would safely take care of the IEP trains.

 

[HH]

How about this : On the basis that the only DOO trains in this country operate at 100 mph maximum we could insist that ANY train that has a maximum speed of more than 100 mph must have another safety critical member of staff aboard in addition to the driver. That would safely take care of the IEP trains.

Who is we, Kemo Sabe?

 

[bnm]

Isn't that more the unions position than reality, as certainly up to today anyway no country in the world operates its long distance Inter City trains with no onboard staff present as a general policy, unless you know otherwise

Many operate their Inter City trains without a guard responsible for doors though. They still have onboard staff, just as FGW will.

I applaud FGW for trying to move forward. Just as their predecessors on the Western Region did when fighting the unions' absurd demands to have a secondman in HSTs. The unions won that battle temporarily but, rightly, lost the war.

 

[craigybagel]

Many operate their Inter City trains without a guard responsible for doors though. They still have onboard staff, just as FGW will.

Except that they won't. I'm not sure how many times this needs repeating, but FGW want to run trains DOO. Sure, there's a vague promise that all trains will have a TM "Diagrammed", but no mention of what that will actually involve. Just in times of disruption, or times when a TM has gone sick and they don't want to pay someone else rest day work to do the job? Or when a Tm retires, why bother replacing them since they can run the train without anyway? Whichever case, it means they will be running intercity trains with only a driver.

 

[SkinnyDave]

Many operate their Inter City trains without a guard responsible for doors though. They still have onboard staff, just as FGW will.

I applaud FGW for trying to move forward. Just as their predecessors on the Western Region did when fighting the unions' absurd demands to have a secondman in HSTs. The unions won that battle temporarily but, rightly, lost the war.

Which services do Cross Country, Virgin East and West Coast not run without a guard responsible for doors?

Where does your 50% turnout figure come from please?

 

[HH]

Isn't that more the unions position than reality, as certainly up to today anyway no country in the world operates its long distance Inter City trains with no onboard staff present as a general policy, unless you know otherwise,even countries like Ireland where most trains have been technically DOO for many years now doesn't

Quite. The idea is simply that rather than not run a train, the change would allow FGW to run a train if the Train Manager was not present for some reason. They could in future decide not to run with TMs at all, but despite assertions otherwise I don't believe it. What I could believe was that new TMs might be brought on with different pay and conditions to existing staff. It's remotely possible that at some point staff might be displaced and brought back on new T&Cs, but it's not what I've seen on DOO business plans (unlike others here I have seen actual business cases, so I speak from experience rather than conjecture).

As I said before, what it will do is remove the potency of any future industrial action by guards, so I understand why they oppose it. A little hyperbole in support of that opposition is to be expected.