W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[bnm]

Where does your 50% turnout figure come from please?

From this very thread. From a forum member who has the RMT logo on his avatar.

Cross referenced from other forums.

 

[HH]

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.

Indeed it would have to, if the number is correct (rather than merely railway rumour), but without the details of this supposed package it is a giant leap to suppose it comes from the removal of guards.

 

[SkinnyDave]

From this very thread. From a forum member who has the RMT logo on his avatar.

Cross referenced from other forums.

I will confirm that no problem..

and the first point?

 

[bnm]

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

Which services do FGW, London Overground, TSGN, C2C, Greater Anglia et seq run without a guard?

I struggle to understand how DOO becomes less safe at longer distances and higher speed? Where is the empirical evidence for this?

This seems to be the over-riding concern of most rail staff posting here. Why then have the RMT lumped in maintenance and catering into the dispute?

Is it it the vain hope that three weak arguments will somehow equal one strong one?

 

[SkinnyDave]

Which services do FGW, London Overground, TSGN, C2C, Greater Anglia et seq run without a guard?

I struggle to understand how DOO becomes less safe at longer distances and higher speed? Where is the empirical evidence for this?

This seems to be the over-riding concern of most rail staff posting here. Why then have the RMT lumped in maintenance and catering into the dispute?

Is it it the vain hope that three weak arguments will somehow equal one strong one?

Thanks for not answering the question there Union bashing laid bare for all to see

 

[bnm]

Thanks for not answering the question there Union bashing laid bare for all to see

Sorry, what question? One about union bashing is it, based on lack of punctuation?

For the record I was on the side of the Network Rail staff in their dispute. But if you want to paint everything as black and white that's your prerogative. I prefer to look at all sides and then form an opinion.

In this case I disagree with the RMT. So, if that's union bashing, so be it. I prefer to see it as a little more nuanced.

 

[plymothian]

FGW will get the public backing with this strike; after all they don't care what a "guard" does and will more than likely moan if their ticket isn't checked/the ac is broken/the wifi is crap/the toilet is blocked/the train is late/missed my connection etc - "we never see the train manager". Like BNM says "what's the problem?" So removing the safety critical jobs that the guard can "hide behind" means more customer face time.

Likewise a withdrawal of labour means FGW just have to say 'the non-running of trains is what we're going to be preventing with these new trains'.

 

[NSEFAN]

Which services do FGW, London Overground, TSGN, C2C, Greater Anglia et seq run without a guard?

I struggle to understand how DOO becomes less safe at longer distances and higher speed? Where is the empirical evidence for this?

This seems to be the over-riding concern of most rail staff posting here.

Reducing the number of staff involved in safety-critical duties increases pressure on the remaining staff, and also increases the chances of incidents occurring without staff even noticing. A reduced number of PTS trained staff is also a risk during an incident (if guards are "downgraded" to customer-facing duties only then there would be no need for PTS training of these staff, again to save training costs). These may be acceptable risks, but it's still an increased risk compared to the status quo. If you're willing to take that extra risk in exchange for a saving then that's fine, but it would seem that the staff who actually work the trains and experience these incidents first hand aren't so keen on that responsibility being transferred to one person. Job security aside, if I was a driver I wouldn't be happy with the increased responsibility without considerable financial recompense for the additional pressure put on me to not kill clumsy pax as I pull out of the station!

 

[Kite159]

FGW will get the public backing with this strike; after all they don't care what a "guard" does and will more than likely moan if their ticket isn't checked/the ac is broken/the wifi is crap/the toilet is blocked/the train is late/missed my connection etc - "we never see the train manager". Like BNM says "what's the problem?" So removing the safety critical jobs that the guard can "hide behind" means more customer face time.

Likewise a withdrawal of labour means FGW just have to say 'the non-running of trains is what we're going to be preventing with these new trains'.

Agreed

The union might win in the short-term, but as history will say, change is coming, majority of job roles evolve over time both in the public & private sector.

And at least with the new trains, one role which the guard/train manager has to carry out (going up and down to make sure all the doors are closed properly) will have been removed.

The passengers who will be caught up in the strike might decide not to use the train in future.

 

[SkinnyDave]

Sorry, what question? One about union bashing is it, based on lack of punctuation?

For the record I was on the side of the Network Rail staff in their dispute. But if you want to paint everything as black and white that's your prerogative. I prefer to look at all sides and then form an opinion.

In this case I disagree with the RMT. So, if that's union bashing, so be it. I prefer to see it as a little more nuanced.

No the question you clearly did not answer before you went on your Union rant!

 

[bnm]

No the question you clearly did not answer before you went on your Union rant!

If there was a question clearly directed at me then I'll gladly answer it. I am genuinely struggling to work out what this question was though.

I'm a union member by the way. I just don't agree with this particular union's stance on the multiple issues it has balloted FGW staff on.

 

[Temple Meads]

I just don't agree with this particular union's stance on the multiple issues it has balloted FGW staff on.

So would you be happy travelling from, say, London to Exeter on a train with no member of staff other than the driver? FGW hope to have the allowance to run trains in DOO mode, so if the diagrammed 'TM' and whatever skeleton catering crew remain aren't available this is a very realistic proposition.

Personally it would at the least leave a sour taste, especially as it's unlikely any cost savings would be passed onto the passenger.

 

[bnm]

So would you be happy travelling from, say, London to Exeter on a train with no member of staff other than the driver?

Yes. If it meant the train ran rather than being cancelled due a member of train crew being unavailable. 174 miles.

Are the 102 miles from Brighton to Bedford any less safe with just a driver? I did the return journey recently, and then back to central London. 255 miles with only a driver. I'm still alive and at no time did I feel unsafe.

 

[notadriver]

The distances between stops are a lot less, so assistance is easier to get. The train also travels at a maximum of 100 mph.

 

[transmanche]

So would you be happy travelling from, say, London to Exeter on a train with no member of staff other than the driver?

In reality though, is that really likely to happen? Would it really be in the TOC's interest to run an LDHS service without any customer service staff on board?

As an aside, what (if any) safety-training do on-board staff (other than driver and conductor) receive?

 

[bnm]

The distances between stops are a lot less, so assistance is easier to get. The train also travels at a maximum of 100 mph.

Ah, so it's the speed and distance between stops that's the problem?

 

[Hadders]

So would you be happy travelling from, say, London to Exeter on a train with no member of staff other than the driver? FGW hope to have the allowance to run trains in DOO mode, so if the diagrammed 'TM' and whatever skeleton catering crew remain aren't available this is a very realistic proposition.

Personally it would at the least leave a sour taste, especially as it's unlikely any cost savings would be passed onto the passenger.

The distances between stops are a lot less, so assistance is easier to get. The train also travels at a maximum of 100 mph.

Great Northern run trains to Kings Lynn that are DOO with the first stop at Cambridge, 45 minutes from Kings Cross.

Great Northern also run 12 carriage trains that are DOO from Peterborough.

I'd rather there were more staff on long distance trains but I think we need to be realistic and recognise that the role of on-board staff is likely to change in the future.

 

[Flamingo]

As an aside, what (if any) safety-training do on-board staff (other than driver and conductor) receive?

Basic first aid (on induction and no refresher), violence at work (walk away), basic fire fighting and evacuation (on induction and again no hands-on refresher).

 

[transmanche]

Basic first aid (on induction and no refresher), violence at work (walk away), and evacuation (on induction and again no refresher).

Thank you. So better than nothing, but nothing like comprehensive.

 

[Flamingo]

Thank you. So better than nothing, but nothing like comprehensive.

The other thing to remember is that Customer Hosts are not required to pass as rigerous a medical, so they may have physical or mental health issues (including medication) that would impact on their appropriate response to an emergency situation, and would (either short or long term) prevent them being employed in a safety-critical situation - exactly the sort of situation where a Guard is essential.

90% of train journeys don't need a guard. But nobody knows which are the 10% that do. Ufton Nervert, Ladbrook Grove, Lavington were all routine trains trundling along at their routine journey, with none of the crew expecting anything unusual to happen - until it did.

 

[yorkie]

So would you be happy travelling from, say, London to Exeter on a train with no member of staff other than the driver?

This is unlikely to happen except, perhaps at times of disruption. Presumably you would drive from London to Kings Lynn rather than take the train?

I have a lot of sympathy for those who will be paid less as a result, I've suffered a downgrading of pay myself so I know what it feels like, but a DOO train (with rostered ticket examiner patrolling the train) is probably safer in most situations than a train where the Guard sits in the back cab (ie, safer for peoples personal safety and acting more as a deterrent against anti-social behaviour) but both are far safer than roads, and if we're going to draw a line somewhere, we would have to rule almost all road travel as unsafe and stop it immediately.

 

[Flamingo]

But there will not be a sudden influx of ATE's to patrol trains from start to finish of journeys either. That's not their job, that's not what they are trained for, and there are already people who are trained to do that - they are called Guards. (There are more Guards in my depot alone - and that's a small depot - than there are RPI's in the whole company).

If some guards do not patrol their trains, that is a management issue, and there is no guarentee that changing the role will make those individuals (or others) do it any better (especially in light of our latest Violence at Work training). But there IS a guard on the train, they can be found in an emergency if required (or they are not aware of the emergency for whatever reason) and they are trained to respond to anything that does happen.

Under the new proposals, they might simply not be there. I don't understand why so many people don't think this is a problem.

 

[Jonfun]

Safety training doesn't need to be excessive for onboard staff without direct safety responsibilities but it should cover, at the very minimum, actions in the event of a fire, how to safely assist in an evacuation (distinct from coordinating the evacuation, which is a safety critical task), how to not get yourself killed when you're on the ground (third rail, trip hazards, other trains etc), and what appropriate response (if any) to take to an emergency situation which develops.

The Guard's skill is situation management. They can oversee what's going on and are in a position to liaise with the driver and other onboard crew to prioritise and coordinate. I would assume in a DOO world this would fall to the Driver, and I wouldn't like to have to be at the front end of a 125mph train having just been told the rear coach is ablaze trying to avoid stopping in an unsuitable location whilst on the GSMR to the Signalman getting trains stopped, whilst trying to acknowledge the x number of passcomms and egress handles that have been pulled, trying to make a PA to reassure folk and get the onboard crew (assuming resources haven't gone without because they buggered up the roster) to get in position for evacuation, and meanwhile listening the panicked warblings of poor Dorothy in coach B toilet who's accidentally pressed the Alarm instead of the flush.

 

[313103]

I love all these people who want DOO.

Most on here already know I've lost one job as a direct result of DOO (I was a Guard), so I moved to where I could afford to live (North London to South East Wales), I managed to get another job with less responsibility and of course a far less salary (£28,500 compared to my current salary of £21,400).

Yet even though I have upped sticks and moved 209 miles, my role as a dispatcher whose primary role is to dispatch FGW trains, is under threat because when these new trains come into service the only member of staff required will be a driver and no one else.

Sadly because I don't work for FGW me and others who work for another company were not balloted even though it has a direct effect on our terms and conditions and future (if any) employment.

I will no doubt be having to dispatch trains with poorly trained in route knowledge managers (one return trip sign the route and off you go) when my fellow colleagues are out on strike.

 

[Bald Rick]

Genuine question, because I don't know the answer...

Has any industrial action taken over the proposed introduction of DOO in this country ever resulted in DOO not being implemented?

I have real sympathy for those affected - having been made redundant twice and downgraded once. (As it turned out, in all cases despite being extremely upset at the time, it was for the best and I ended up moving on to better things)

 

[LowLevel]

The newly privatised SWT in the 90s. The equipment was mostly all scrapped.

Ironically Stagecoach are now staunchly anti DOO to the extent that the 707 units being delivered will have guards on SWT and the East Coast IEPs will be guard operated. No one has explained why FGW's passengers deserve less in the way safety trained staff than other operators.

They have forgotten their dead employees and passengers already it appears.

 

[Bald Rick]

The newly privatised SWT in the 90s. The equipment was mostly all scrapped.

Ironically Stagecoach are now staunchly anti DOO to the extent that the 707 units being delivered will have guards on SWT and the East Coast IEPs will be guard operated. No one has explained why FGW's passengers deserve less in the way safety trained staff than other operators.

They have forgotten their dead employees and passengers already it appears.

That was installed by BR, but was there industrial action? I didn't think there was, but could be wrong.

Any other examples?

 

[Carlisle]

JBJ

Genuine question, because I don't know the answer...

Has any industrial action taken over the proposed introduction of DOO in this country ever resulted in DOO not being implemented?

I have real sympathy for those affected - having been made redundant twice and downgraded once. (As it turned out, in all cases despite being extremely upset at the time, it was for the best and I ended up moving on to better things)

Yes SWT in 1998 ,the equipment had been reconditioned by SWT but the scheme was dropped when RMT and ASLEF proposed strike action. As you said the equipment was originally installed by BR in about 1991 and along with Euston -Rugby/Northampton/St Albans ASLEF never accepted it ,so BR quietly postponed it with no strikes. National Express (one) proposed converting Harwich, Clacton/Walton branches but that was quietly dropped after the RMT expressed its displeasure

 

[bnm]

They have forgotten their dead employees and passengers already it appears.

Dead as a result of DOO? No.

What a silly statement.

 

[455driver]

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.

The current TM's are only safe until the end of the franchise.
Can you tell me the difference between any other DOO train (Strathclyde/South Eastern etc) and what DaFT/FGW are proposing please, because I cannot see any difference!