W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[Flamingo]

I'm still having trouble finding out how over 1400 members are less than half the members balloted. According to the Swindon advertiser, the RMT say around 2000 members will be involved in the action. This would imply that around 2000 members would have bern eligible to vote. 1400 out of 2000 (in round figures) is a lot more than 50%, 1200 voting for action is a lot more than 50%. http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/...s_RMT_members_to_strike_for_24_hours/?ref=rss
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Regarding the permanence of the TM role, our job and role is only guaranteed for the next four and a half years. This has been said to several colleagues, and myself, by several managers of various grades (reportedly by Directors as well).

When I asked a manager why Southern and East Coast were not taking the same path, I was told that FGW were trialling it.

 

[LowLevel]

Dead as a result of DOO? No.

What a silly statement.

No. Just dead. Particularly dead train drivers who aren't very good at caring for their passengers.

Funnily the guards where provided were generally credited as being fairly useful and where they weren't safety trained staff happened to be available more by luck than judgement. The recent issues at Greenford with TPWS, a HST nearly crashing into Tangmere etc show how close we've nearly come and a dead driver is no use to anyone. Driver Hodder was dead instantly at Ladbroke Grove and it was lucky someone not mandated to be there was to help.

It may sound harsh but unlike some hobbyist commentators I'm a train guard and in between generally enjoying my job I have to face up to the idea I might have to function with one of my mates dead up front. They also know they might be the one to hit a tree or car or cop a paving slab one day and hope their guard is there to help.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Trialling it? What sort of response is that?

A manager I spoke to said that the DfT had specified full DOO with no staff. The proposal that FGW was offering was above what they wanted. How true that is though, I have no idea!

If that is true, then we would appear to be only there by good will of the company. Not exactly a good foundation for convincing staff they are wanted beyond this short period of time...

 

[bnm]

I'm still having trouble finding out how over 1400 members are less than half the members balloted. According to the Swindon advertiser, the RMT say around 2000 members will be involved in the action. This would imply that around 2000 members would have bern eligible to vote. 1400 out of 2000 (in round figures) is a lot more than 50%, 1200 voting for action is a lot more than 50%. http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/...s_RMT_members_to_strike_for_24_hours/?ref=rss

From the same article:

"Forty-one per cent of RMT members who work for FGW have voted in favour of this action..."

 

[Captain Chaos]

From the same article:

That still doesn't add up though. If the figure is around 2000, then the figure of yes voters should be around 800? I think we need some official figures?

 

[thelongestroad]

From what I was made aware, DfT did not specify that IEP had to be DOO. FGW decided they would do it off their own backs.

 

[bnm]

That still doesn't add up though. If the figure is around 2000, then the figure of yes voters should be around 800? I think we need some official figures?

Indeed. You'd think if the RMT had a majority for industrial action they'd be mentioning it. As it is we have FGW saying 41% for strike. Are they lying?

 

[Captain Chaos]

Indeed. You'd think if the RMT had a majority for industrial action they'd be mentioning it. As it is we have FGW saying 41% for strike. Are they lying?

I'm not saying they are in the slightest. I'm saying that the figures from either side aren't matching. I think I will wait for the full figures to be released in an official capacity. I haven't seen anything on the RMT website yet. Haven't checked yet though.

 

[ainsworth74]

From what I was made aware, DfT did not specify that IEP had to be DOO. FGW decided they would do it off their own backs.

From the train technical specification issued by the DfT:

3.5 Driver Only Operation

The IEP Trains must support Driver Only Operation (DOO) across the IEP Network, subject to the platform edge being illuminated to at least 10 Lux.

The IEP Trains must be compatible with DOO dispatch arrangements, where the train driver alone manages control of the doors at stations, as well as driving the train. In this situation, the design of the IEP Train must ensure that the driver is able to safely dispatch the train using images provided on collocated on-board CCTV monitors, the images being provided by on-board CCTV cameras mounted on the body sides.

DfT specified way back in 2012 when they issued the contract to Hitachi that IEP trains have to be DOO capable.

I still maintain that FGW are doing the DfT's dirty work for them here and that if it's successful expect to see it rolled out on the ECML at some point during the life of these trains.

 

[455driver]

From what I was made aware, DfT did not specify that IEP had to be DOO. FGW decided they would do it off their own backs.

That isn't what I heard, I heard it was part of the agreement on being given the direct award that FGW would introduce this DOO.

Can all those people who post 'i can't see them running trains DOO unless absolutely necessary' explain their reasoning please, after all if DOO is as safe as crew working why wouldn't the next step (if this gets in) be full DOO operation?

 

[BestWestern]

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.

No, you both miss the point. As has already been pointed out, several times, FGW has openly stated that it wishes to be able to operate IEP/SET "with the Driver as the only member of staff on board". Do we need to somehow make that clearer still? That means nobody.

Alarmingly, the example offered to qualify the argument for this was that it would mean trains wouldn't be help up awaiting displaced TMs during times of severe disruption. Anybody who has ever travelled out of Paddington during such times will spot the problem with that; somebody on board to assist the baffled punters during abject chaos is paramount. But under this wonderful new system you'll very possibly get nobody. Good luck.

 

[Captain Chaos]

That isn't what I heard, I heard it was part of the agreement on being given the direct award that FGW would introduce this DOO.

Can all those people who post 'i can't see them running trains DOO unless absolutely necessary' explain their reasoning please, after all if DOO is as safe as crew working why wouldn't the next step (if this gets in) be full DOO operation?

Actually, IIRC, in a company newsletter, they stated explicitly that these trains would be introduced with Guards operating the doors. However, because the trains were capable of DOO operation, it would be up to the next franchise holder how they would operate them. The franchise holder hasn't changed. It's still First Group, but we now have this situation. It screams of DfT interference to me. I just wish I'd kept that newsletter now... Can't have been more than 18 months ago?

 

[thelongestroad]

From the train technical specification issued by the DfT:



DfT specified way back in 2012 when they issued the contract to Hitachi that IEP trains have to be DOO capable.

I still maintain that FGW are doing the DfT's dirty work for them here and that if it's successful expect to see it rolled out on the ECML at some point during the life of these trains.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Were they designed, or are they built to allow a guard to do the doors?

Perhaps that's where I misheard.. perhaps they meant DfT allowed the TOCs (FGW/EC) to decide whether they were full DOO or DCO or retain a train manager or whatever they're calling it this week.

ASLEF, the ball is in your court..

 

[ainsworth74]

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Were they designed, or are they built to allow a guard to do the doors?

Same specification:

4.12.2 Door Control

The IEP Train controls must be designed to allow either Driver Only Operation (DOO) or Driver Guard Operation (DGO).

The IEP Train controls must be designed so as to allow the following methods of DGO operation:

• the driver releases the doors and the guard is responsible for closing them (DGO-D);
and
• the guard releases the doors and the guard is responsible for closing them (DGO-G)​

SDO functionality must be provided in both DOO and DGO modes.

In the case of DGO-G operation, if action from the driver is necessary to allow SDO to function then it is permissible for the driver to be involved in the release of the doors, it must however always be an action of the guard which actually releases the train doors.

A means must be provided to allow staff to release and close the IEP Train doors when a driver is not present.

A means must be provided to allow staff access and egress to and from the IEP Train when the doors are not released. Such access must be provided on each side adjacent to each catering facility on the IEP Train with a minimum of one access on each side.

Door controls must be provided at each guard’s position, which shall as a minimum be at vehicle length intervals on passenger carrying IEP Vehicles each side of the IEP Train. These controls must allow for guard releasing and closing of the passenger doors.

As far as I'm aware Hitachi are delivering them capable of DOO, DGO-D and DGO-G operation from day one.

You know, I really wish more people would at least skim read the IEP specification it answers an awful lot of questions

 

[Busaholic]

In answer to the question 'would you be happy travelling on a train from London to Exeter with the driver the only member of staff on board?', emphatically NO, speaking as one of the few on here neither working for the railways or ever having worked for the railways. The passenger is paying enough for this 'service' and is entitled to think there is someone to turn to, other than other passengers. I despair of a country that would contemplate allowing this to happen. Is there a severe labour shortage with 100% employment suddenly?

 

[yorkie]

In answer to the question 'would you be happy travelling on a train from London to Exeter with the driver the only member of staff on board?', emphatically NO

Better drive if you need to do London to Kings Lynn then, as that's a long journey with only a driver.

Ah, I think we're at a point where the discussion goes round in circles. Not for the first time, and not for the last...

Is there a severe labour shortage with 100% employment suddenly?

The letter states there will be MORE staff. They will make many of the existing DOO trains, which currently don't have anyone other than a driver, have a member of staff to check tickets and provide customer service.

It's good news for prospective employees who wish to be on-board ticket examiners/managers (Southeastern High Speed 1/Strathclyde electric style - constantly patrolling the train and not allowed to sit in the back cab) but it's bad news for existing Guards, whose salary is something like £30k+ and the replacement Grade would be a few grand less than this (perhaps someone else may know what the figures are). Yes, they will get pay protection but that might not last forever and pay protection wouldn't be quite so good in real terms after several years. It would also reduce their prospects of further increases in pay because the threat of strike action wouldn't be so crippling to the Company.

I can understand why Guards are unhappy at their reduction in pay, no-one would want that. But it's not true to say FGW intend to employ less staff.

At present if there is no Train Manager available for a train it will be cancelled (and passengers conveyed on alternative trains, or by bus/taxi) or delayed until one is available. Under the proposals, the train could still run.

I'd rather be on a train with on-board staff but if that's not possible due to disruption I'd rather be on a train that runs, than on a replacement coach (which, conditionally would also be driver only of course!) but I also accept that some people disagree and would rather the train be cancelled and be on the replacement coach.

 

[hello]

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.

i believe a couple of years ago there were instances on the thameslink route where major problems occured, the driver is trying to do his/her job (fix the train) the driver is therefore not keeping the passengers informed of what is happening, time goes on, passengers get aggetated and then because they dont know whats happening door egresses get pulled people get out of the train and makes the problem 10 times worse, if guards are there they sort the passengers out, so the driver can get the problems sorted

 

[Busaholic]

I'd rather be on a train with on-board staff but if that's not possible due to disruption I'd rather be on a train that runs, than on a replacement coach (which, conditionally would also be driver only of course!) but I also accept that some people disagree and would rather the train be cancelled and be on the replacement coach.

A coach driver is not locked away out of the sight of his/her passengers.

 

[yorkie]

A coach driver is not locked away out of the sight of his/her passengers.

The driver of an ftr is! (they would all be restored to have conductors, however they can run without conductors)

Anyway I think we can nearly all agree that it is desirable for a member of visible staff patrolling the passenger areas of the train. Where people will disagree is on whether or not to cancel the train if there isn't, or whether that person should be controlling doors, level of training etc etc. (as posted a few hundred posts ago )

 

[the sniper]

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.

I'm not having a go at you here as you were only answering the question you were asked, but a fairer question to answer, which you can't unless you end up in a scenario like this, is were you still happy travelling on a DOO train when an incident occurred. For example, after you'd been on a train that crashed, divided, had the driver incapacitated/unavailable to attend to passengers, been evacuated in an emergency, breakdown/get stranded between stations, had a fire, had a riot onboard, had someone fall ill or die onboard, had someone 'stuck' in the toilet, had one or more persons repeatedly misusing passcoms, had a passcom activation where noone replies to the driver via the microphone, had someone kicking off with another passenger or you...

Most of us will never be in some of these situations. Some of us, particularly those who work these trains, will have dealt with some of the above on numerous occasions. Some you might only encounter once in your lifetime/career. But these things do occur and can highlight the shortfalls and potential shortfalls of only having one member of staff (a Driver) on board a train who's primary responsibility is not dealing with passengers. Now, you're going to say that most FGW DOO trains (in the short term anyway) will have an additional member of staff onboard, but any of the above could happen on one of the potentially few trains that'll only have a Driver onboard.

Incidents like this highlight why you want more than one member of staff onboard a train: https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/train-driver-receiving-a-severe-electric-shock-at-sutton-weaver How would the aftermath of this incident have panned out if that train had been fully DOO?

And I know it's not a popular analogy, but nobody talks about large commercial airliners carrying 600+ people going POO (Pilot Only Operation). On a large airliner carrying around the same number or far less passengers than an Intercity train I believe you can have the equivalent of a Driver, a Secondman, 11 Guards, 3 Onboard Customer Service Assistants and an Onboard Service Manager. This on an aircraft that can theoretically fly itself in most circumstances. Yet on our railway it has to be considered an unreasonable luxury in this day and age that you'd have a ratio of at least two trained members of staff to potentially 600+ passengers on every train! The two things aren't the same, but are they really that different that such a vast disparity in manning and ideology is justified?

 

[Flamingo]

In practical terms, the only major difference between HST's and IEP's is that on the IEP's, the Driver can check when the doors are shut, on HST's the Guard tells him when they are. The track is the same, the routes are the same, the passengers are the same, the risks are the same. What is going to change overnight to make a Guard unnecessary? Complaining that a Guard is not patrolling the train in one breath, then saying it's fine to run a train without one in another is bordering on hypocrisy, or at least a strange double-think.

Regarding the definition of "disruption", I asked a manager what this meant and got told it included Sunday rather than paying staff overtime. So the trains that are the busiest of the week with the passengers least familiar with the railways will be run with no on-board presence. At this won't be from Paddington to Reading to pick up the mythical Guard who we are being told is always available at Reading but not at Paddington during disruption.

The proposal to hire more staff (in what grade.) is meaningless. If there is no compulsion to have them on- train, they can be got rid of (through redundancy, or natural wastage) in a very short space of time. And NOTHING is guaranteed after four and a half years. That's 54 months away. My car loan is longer than that!

These proposals are a serious risk to passenger and train safety, security, and customer service. I can't believe so many so-called train enthusiasts can't see this, and after having it explained time and time again still don't get it. If it was a proposal to remove split ticketing (which would probably save the railway much more money) you'd all be writing to your MP's and marching on Parliament. Some of the posts on this thread really do show that some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

Are some of you so anti-staff that you'd rather see none, or what?

 

[plymothian]

Another reason that guards aren't required ... a guard must have been trained for on average 10 weeks before working a train alone, a manager can do it in 2 days.

 

[notadriver]

The comparison was made with road transport and is irrelevant. The driver is always accessible by the passenger and evacuation onto the roadside if required is easier and safer than on the railway.

 

[Minilad]

Just a quick question for the people who have no problem with DOO and the resultant loss of jobs or reduction of earnings for the people affected.
Why are you so keen on having DOO when it will mean absolutely nothing to you or have any material effect on you?
I could never imagine myself being happy to see someone losing a job or having to take a reduction in earnings when I didn't benefit from that in any way.
Lets face it the only people who will benefit here are shareholders in the TOC. Fares will not go down. The service you get will not get better.
I just don't get it

 

[BestWestern]

Another reason that guards aren't required ... a guard must have been trained for on average 10 weeks before working a train alone, a manager can do it in 2 days.

Managers are trained in a very short time that's for sure. However they still require Rules and PTS courses and exams, traction and route knowledge for anything they will work over. That is more than two days, unless of course they are already competent in some aspects of what they'll be doing.

 

[HH]

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!

The TMs are only guaranteed their job at current T&Cs to the end of the franchise. No-one has suggested otherwise. DfT wouldn't let any TOC make guarantees beyond their franchise; it's part of the franchise agreement. But it's also inconceivable that any new operator would remove all staff from InterCity trains; it simply wouldn't make economic sense.

There is a clear difference to a train with only a driver on board and a train with a driver and other members of staff on board.

All ScotRail trains are rostered to have at least two staff, even where they have no responsibility for train dispatch. Trains that are DCO can run without that second person if necessary, but it hardly ever happens in reality.

 

[Flamingo]

On the next Franchise (50 something months away), if DOO (under any circumstances) goes through, there is nothing to stop the next franchise getting rid of Guards and replacing them with Customer Ambassadors on an MS (management) grade with no safety-critical training and much worse pay, conditions, and minimal training. They would not be subject to any of those Hidden restrictions or medical restrictions that apply to the Guards grade.


This would provide the illusion to any passengers who cared of having a competent person on-board. This could be justified as they are managing the Trolley person. If I've thought of it, you can be damn sure someone else has.

 

[HH]

TCan all those people who post 'i can't see them running trains DOO unless absolutely necessary' explain their reasoning please, after all if DOO is as safe as crew working why wouldn't the next step (if this gets in) be full DOO operation?

It has nothing to do with safety; it's a commercial decision. FGW's trains require staff on board to:

1. Provide general customer service
2. Check tickets
3. Provide refreshment

While the latter can be (and has been on some TOCs) dispensed by third parties, it's the least important of the three functions.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On the next Franchise (50 something months away), if DOO (under any circumstances) goes through, there is nothing to stop the next franchise getting rid of Guards and replacing them with Customer Ambassadors on an MS (management) grade with no safety-critical training and much worse pay, conditions, and minimal training. This would provide the illusion to any passengers who cared of having a competent person on-board. This could be justified as they are managing the Trolley person. If I've thought of it, you can be damn sure someone else has.

This is always possible. I've been made redundant a few times, so, as I already stated, I understand why guards would oppose it. However, let's not put up paper tigers, like all staff will be removed from trains, eh? It's not going to happen.

 

[Flamingo]

If you read my post, I'm not saying all staff will be removed from trains. I'm saying that there will be a reduction in training and competency of on-train staff, which in the long-term can not be to the passengers advantage.

 

[HH]

If you read my post, I'm not saying all staff will be removed from trains. I'm saying that there will be a reduction in training and competency of on-train staff, which in the long-term can not be to the passengers advantage.

Apologies. I see it reads like that; I wasn't referring to you, but to others.

There may be a reduction in training; there may be an increase. What is certain is that will be different. I say this from having previously read bidder's proposals on DOO/DCO.