W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[BestWestern]

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.

There will not be an 'increase' in training. Guards already posses the required skills to carry out the full range of responsibilities being mooted under the new method of operation. Be assured, what you will end up with are staff qualified to a significantly lower standard - new staff with no railway experience or knowledge of the sort an experienced Guard has, and former TMs who are likely to be rather demoralised and probably significantly less interested than they used to be. Suggestions that any of this will be beneficial to passengers in some way are complete nonsense.

 

[Flamingo]

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.

I think everybody recognises that new traction, especially as advanced as this is supposed to be, is going to require a different method of work. Hopefully easier and safer than what it's replacing. What I can't understand, and have said before, is why it is being introduced by FGW in a way that it totally antagonising the people who are going to work it, and who's support and co-operation is required to make a success of it.

The new method of working is something that should be getting worked on as a joint effort between management and staff, not the current situation where management have created huge uncertainty in staff of all grades, and only paid lip-service in answering the legitimate questions staff have about their role and job security.

 

[HH]

There will not be an 'increase' in training. Guards already posses the required skills to carry out the full range of responsibilities being mooted under the new method of operation. Be assured, what you will end up with are staff qualified to a significantly lower standard - new staff with no railway experience or knowledge of the sort an experienced Guard has, and former TMs who are likely to be rather demoralised and probably significantly less interested than they used to be. Suggestions that any of this will be beneficial to passengers in some way are complete nonsense.

There may be an increase in training when the new operator takes over. It would be more around customer service; it may even include safety critical training (although I fear not), just not train dispatch.

Perhaps TMs are fully trained in Customer Service already; however scores in passenger surveys suggest that there is room for improvement, for instance in the latest National Rail Passenger Survey, FGW scores 69% satisfied on the attitude and helpfulness of staff on train, compared to the long distance average (which includes FGW's 69) of 82.

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

I think everybody recognises that new traction, especially as advanced as this is supposed to be, is going to require a different method of work. Hopefully easier and safer than what it's replacing. What I can't understand, and have said before, is why it is being introduced by FGW in a way that it totally antagonising the people who are going to work it, and who's support and co-operation is required to make a success of it.

The new method of working is something that should be getting worked on as a joint effort between management and staff, not the current situation where management have created huge uncertainty in staff of all grades, and only paid lip-service in answering the legitimate questions staff have about their role and job security.

I agree with this, however I see the ghostly hand of the DfT here. There'd rather it were done before the franchise was re-let, because they think they'll get a better price.

 

[Flamingo]

There may be an increase in training when the new operator takes over. It would be more around customer service; it may even include safety critical training (although I fear not), just not train dispatch.

Perhaps TMs are fully trained in Customer Service already; however scores in passenger surveys suggest that there is room for improvement, for instance in the latest National Rail Passenger Survey, FGW scores 69% satisfied on the attitude and helpfulness of staff on train, compared to the long distance average (which includes FGW's 69) of 82.

]

A lot of training has already been put into customer service. However, I would question which proportion of the Passengers questioned on the long distance trains were Thames Valley commuters. In my experience, they are an entirely different beast to the genuine long distance traveller, and, putting it bluntly, a large number are almost impossible to please, along with being very vocal in their "discomfort". A quick look at Twitter any day of the week would back this up.

I agree with this, however I see the ghostly hand of the DfT here. There'd rather it were done before the franchise was re-let, because they think they'll get a better price.

oh, the whole thing is originating with the DfT, but they want the "deniability" factor when it goes wrong.

 

[Mojo]

oh, the whole thing is originating with the DfT, but they want the "deniability" factor when it goes wrong.

This is the only logical reason I can think of for the current structure of privatisation existing at all. It certainly isn't cheaper.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is the only logical reason I can think of for the current structure of privatisation existing at all. It certainly isn't cheaper.

Quite! When good things happen it's thanks to 'government policy/funding' when bad things happen 'it's up to the railway companies to resolve this'. Very convenient for the DfT and whichever colour of government is in power!

 

[FordFocus]

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?

Well posted Flamingo

Guards are there to enhance safety and are praised in reports when it does go wrong, latest one is the RAIB report about the VT driver who sadly got electrocuted. Yet there are people on here who don't have a full understanding of what a guard does. It annoys me that people on here are so blinkered to think that all a guard does is sit in the back cab reading paper. It maybe true of certain people but as mentioned if these people continued on doing it they would be disciplined and trust me, it happens I've seen it happen to a colleague at another depot. An easy way is downloading the Avantix data and finding out why revenue is down with certain people and then tea and biscuits in the office with a manager.

So why all the pro-DOO stuff on here when a new fleet of trains comes in. What does the passenger actually gain from it? Ticket prices won't go down and there is a potential for a train to run without a guard because the TOC wants to run it on a shoestring with a crewing complement that's down to the bare minimum. I've seen it happen time and time again. TOCs will roster from day to day, getting by with favours and overtime just to cover the basic service leaving no one spare to work disruption or out of place trains when it goes wrong. As soon as something big happens like signalling problems or overhead line problems, a few trains start getting big 30 min+ delays it has a huge knock on effect for hours because train crew are in the wrong place or need to take their breaks (legal requirement). TOCs don't like spare traincrew sat around that can deal with this sort of thing and get the service back to normal. Another thing is as soon as people decide not to work overtime, usually a sunny Sunday in the summer the TOC kicks up a stink and blames the workforce because they won't come in on their days off and deciding to spend time at home with their families.. It's not the staffs fault, it's the TOCs fault for NOT employing enough staff in the first place.

I honestly thing if there is a staffing shortage of TMs these trains will just run DOO until it gets to a point of it been the norm. This is why this needs stopping now.


I can think of a few that will disagree entirely with what I say and will claim I'm wrong because I've not provided 100 URL to sources. Then they will claim that they are right because they don't work on the railway, have never seen it first hand and sit on forums like this all day thinking they know it all.

Good luck to the Guards and others taking part in this strike. You have my full support.

 

[HH]

A lot of training has already been put into customer service. However, I would question which proportion of the Passengers questioned on the long distance trains were Thames Valley commuters. In my experience, they are an entirely different beast to the genuine long distance traveller, and, putting it bluntly, a large number are almost impossible to please, along with being very vocal in their "discomfort". A quick look at Twitter any day of the week would back this up.

You may well be right!

 

[HowardGWR]

Taking Flamingo's point about Reading commuters and long distance pax, is it not time to run a separate fast shuttle service for them on which separate tickets are needed? At the same time FGW type companies to train a new type of service personnel similar to airline chief steward, whose chief responsibility is to safety and comfort of pax, for long distance market?

 

[Flamingo]

Taking Flamingo's point about Reading commuters and long distance pax, is it not time to run a separate fast shuttle service for them on which separate tickets are needed? At the same time FGW type companies to train a new type of service personnel similar to airline chief steward, whose chief responsibility is to safety and comfort of pax, for long distance market?

We're told time and time again that Crossrail will solve this problem, and everybody from Reading will be travelling on it instead of the fast trains. I have my doubts.

The separate tickets might work - like the Gatwick Express works

 

[MarlowDonkey]

and everybody from Reading will be travelling on it instead of the fast trains.

I would have thought pasengers from Reading, Maidenhead etc. to Central London will see Crossrail as a supercharged Central Line and will take fast trains to Paddington and change there, rather than wait for a Crossrail train to get to Paddington stopping at most or all stations. Depending on the service pattern and platform usage, changing at Ealing may also become an option in both directions.

 

[Agent_c]

As someone trying to understand the issue here... Obviously I get that many of you are invested by having jobs as guards, and want to preserve that.

But what practical difference is there to me, as a customer, between DOO (with Customer service staff on board) and a Guard running the show?

Not saying this to attack anyone, just wanting to understand why as a Customer I'd prefer one over the other.

 

[bb21]

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.

If things are as simple as you make out, assuming that they both start from the same level of knowledge, I don't think I would feel safe at all with someone who compressed their ten-week training in two weeks or had much less competence compared to a conventional guard in charge of onboard safety should the driver be incapacitated.

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.

It then really makes one wonder what all the fuss is about considering how long the current franchise has left to run. How much are they going to save realistically having to spend money implementing all these changes in the first place?

All signs point to FGW wanting to get into DfT's good books rather than doing it for any sound operational reason.

(The only aspect of the changes I am in agreement with is driver releasing doors, but that is it. Not driver dispatching. Not DOO, or whatever other fancy term they like to use.)

We're told time and time again that Crossrail will solve this problem, and everybody from Reading will be travelling on it instead of the fast trains. I have my doubts.

The separate tickets might work - like the Gatwick Express works

I did propose a solution a while back, but no one seemed to like it.

Make High Speed services first stop Didcot after Paddington, and extend some Crossrail services to Didcot too. Originate some High Speed services at Reading instead of Paddington. No High Speed service between Reading and Paddington that stops at both stations.

Season ticket prices between Reading and London may have to come down a bit. Maybe one day.

 

[HowardGWR]

I did propose a solution a while back, but no one seemed to like it.

Make High Speed services first stop Didcot after Paddington, and extend some Crossrail services to Didcot too. Originate some High Speed services at Reading instead of Paddington. No High Speed service between Reading and Paddington that stops at both stations.

Season ticket prices between Reading and London may have to come down a bit. Maybe one day.

Well I thought it worthy of consideration, but a way of preventing Reading commuter pax, or indeed Didcot same from boarding long distance HSTs at rush hours is needed, as we have previously discussed at length. Pick up /set down exclusion of them could be achieved with appropriate barriers.

I see a totally different on-train job between running a commuter service and a service that gives enough time to serve refreshments (over an hour's duration usually). Don't forget that in future, long distance trains will be stopping at OOC too, so someone needs to think about the pattern and quality of service levels offered. It has been suggested that a commuter service from Basingstoke to Pad is likely under electric spine installation between there and Reading.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is it the DfT or FGW who gets the final say as to if the trains are to go DOO?

 

[ainsworth74]

Both I would have thought. FGW could go DOO if they wanted to as long as they weren't in breach of contract with the DfT. Equally the DfT can insist that they go DOO at each new franchise agreement or direct award (such as the one that has just happened). They might even be able to vary an existing agreement to require a move to DOO if they wanted to.

In this instance it's my feeling that the DfT are the driving force behind it and FGW are doing their dirty work for them.

 

[Flamingo]

Is it the DfT or FGW who gets the final say as to if the trains are to go DOO?

Nether- it's ASLEF

 

[ainsworth74]

Nether- it's ASLEF

Hehe forgot about them!

 

[Flamingo]

We haven't. At this point, I suspect the strike will put ASLEF in a position that they will be expected to man up as well, as we have demonstrated we are prepared to go all the way to protect the grade - it's up to them to do the same.

 

[ainsworth74]

Aye if I was in you and your colleagues position that would be my strategy. I think the main takeaway from strike action around DOO is that unless ASLEF are on board it's ultimately doomed to failure.

 

[455driver]

We haven't. At this point, I suspect the strike will put ASLEF in a position that they will be expected to man up as well, as we have demonstrated we are prepared toz go all the way to protect the grade - it's up to them to do the same.

ASLEF have recently reiterated their position of no expansion to DOO, I thjnk that clears it up nicely!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As someone trying to understand the issue here... Obviously I get that many of you are invested by having jobs as guards, and want to preserve that.

But what practical difference is there to me, as a customer, between DOO (with Customer service staff on board) and a Guard running the show?

Not saying this to attack anyone, just wanting to understand why as a Customer I'd prefer one over the other.

The problem is the fact that those customer service staff (of any grade) are not guaranteed to be on any trains and neither FGW or DaFT will go on record and answer the question, although FGW have stated that they want to run trains fully DOO with just the driver on board during 'disruption', but they won't go on record as to what constitutes disruption.

It would be very easy to avoid these strikes if somebody would actually answer the staffs questions instead of just waffling on (or pontificating in posh speak).

 

[Captain Chaos]

Thank you 455driver. That's exactly what my issue with it all is!

If you're going to make proposals, then lay down the commitments. We have some, but everything else is so vague. No actual definition of what disruption they refer to. How severe does this disruption have to be before the clause is enacted? What will be the maximum permissable delay to a service? How will the driver know the TM is on board? What are the rostering arrangements?

I can't help but feel that all of this could have been avoided if they had sat down with the unions from the outset. Surely the best way of getting your staff on side is to involve them from the outset?

 

[BestWestern]

As someone trying to understand the issue here... Obviously I get that many of you are invested by having jobs as guards, and want to preserve that.

But what practical difference is there to me, as a customer, between DOO (with Customer service staff on board) and a Guard running the show?

Not saying this to attack anyone, just wanting to understand why as a Customer I'd prefer one over the other.

Quite simply, if an accident or incident occurs it's the difference between having one safety trained person; the Driver, or two. Consider that the Driver is usually the first person to feel the impact in a collision; consider that the Driver has many things to attend to in the event of any emergency that don't in any way concern dealing with the passengers; consider that the Driver may be incapacitated not only through a collision and injury but also through shock or ill health.

The Great Western network has in recent history suffered some very nasty accidents. We had Southall, Ladbroke Grove and Ufton Nervet. We came very seriously close to having another one very recently, thanks to a certain heritage operator - make no mistake, in that incident the marvellous foolproof safety systems that make crashes impossible were thoroughly overidden; had that train passed the signal just minutes earlier we would have seen a major train crash. We had the shocking incident at Lavington in which a tree smashed through and demolished the cab of a speeding HST; only by sheer luck did the Driver walk away. A few weeks ago we suffered a fatality in which the victim smashed through the windscreen and impacted the cab bulkhead directly behind where the Driver's head would have been, had he not been quick enough to dive onto the floor. Transpenine Express had a Driver suffer a heart attack in the middle of nowhere (as seen on TV). Virgin recently had a Driver electrocuted by 25,000 volts of traction current..."Sh*t happens", as they say, and when it does you're a hell of a lot better off when there's decent, competent help available. Those who like to imply that the railway stopped having accidents and incidents when BR ceased to be are living in a dream world.

Put it this way - when I did my Guard training and we covered the bits about accidents and the emergency procedures concerning them, the trainer was very clear about the 'golden rule' - the procedure comes first, the passengers come last. That applies to all of us, and if the Driver doesn't make it your Guard will do the neccessary. If the Driver is still breathing and able to do his bit, you have a clued-up second person who can assist you. If you have only a Driver, whether he makes it or not he isn't going to be helping his passengers. Your friendly Ticket Examiner/customer service bod/whatever will be considerably less helpful in either case.

So, I hope that helps to clear it up for you!

 

[Carlisle]

I can't help but feel that all of this could have been avoided if they had sat down with the unions from the outset. Surely the best way of getting your staff on side is to involve them from the outset?

I get more of an impression from some of the posts on here that unless FGW was prepared to give RMT a cast iron garuntee that virtually nothing at all would change regarding its members jobs on the new IEP stock this strike would still have gone ahead at some point

 

[LateThanNever]

We haven't. At this point, I suspect the strike will put ASLEF in a position that they will be expected to man up as well, as we have demonstrated we are prepared to go all the way to protect the grade - it's up to them to do the same.

Quite - unless the drivers support you all is lost. As I've said before this is key. Without it there is little future for Guards with a capital G.
The difficulty is that drivers are very well paid and there is little incentive for them to support Guards - unless they would prefer a better life! Is ASLEF listening?

 

[Captain Chaos]

I get more of an impression from some of the posts on here that unless FGW was prepared to give RMT a cast iron garuntee that virtually nothing at all would change regarding its members jobs on the new IEP stock this strike would still have gone ahead at some point

Perhaps. But I think it would have been the better way forward still though. I guess we'll never know?

 

[bnm]

I've seen the contingency plan for FGW services during the strike period. Looks like buses for me on Thursday.

Well done for taking a stand FGW RMT members. A futile one, but a stand nonetheless. :mad:

 

[BestWestern]

I've seen the contingency plan for FGW services during the strike period. Looks like buses for me on Thursday.

Well done for taking a stand FGW RMT members. A futile one, but a stand nonetheless. :mad:

As a chap once said - "If you fight, you might lose. If you don't fight, you will always lose"

 

[Agent_c]

Quite simply, if an accident or incident occurs it's the difference between having one safety trained person; the Driver, or two. Consider that the Driver is usually the first person to feel the impact in a collision; consider that the Driver has many things to attend to in the event of any emergency that don't in any way concern dealing with the passengers; consider that the Driver may be incapacitated not only through a collision and injury but also through shock or ill health.

The Great Western network has in recent history suffered some very nasty accidents. We had Southall, Ladbroke Grove and Ufton Nervet. We came very seriously close to having another one very recently, thanks to a certain heritage operator - make no mistake, in that incident the marvellous foolproof safety systems that make crashes impossible were thoroughly overidden; had that train passed the signal just minutes earlier we would have seen a major train crash. We had the shocking incident at Lavington in which a tree smashed through and demolished the cab of a speeding HST; only by sheer luck did the Driver walk away. A few weeks ago we suffered a fatality in which the victim smashed through the windscreen and impacted the cab bulkhead directly behind where the Driver's head would have been, had he not been quick enough to dive onto the floor. Transpenine Express had a Driver suffer a heart attack in the middle of nowhere (as seen on TV). Virgin recently had a Driver electrocuted by 25,000 volts of traction current..."Sh*t happens", as they say, and when it does you're a hell of a lot better off when there's decent, competent help available. Those who like to imply that the railway stopped having accidents and incidents when BR ceased to be are living in a dream world.

Put it this way - when I did my Guard training and we covered the bits about accidents and the emergency procedures concerning them, the trainer was very clear about the 'golden rule' - the procedure comes first, the passengers come last. That applies to all of us, and if the Driver doesn't make it your Guard will do the neccessary. If the Driver is still breathing and able to do his bit, you have a clued-up second person who can assist you. If you have only a Driver, whether he makes it or not he isn't going to be helping his passengers. Your friendly Ticket Examiner/customer service bod/whatever will be considerably less helpful in either case.

So, I hope that helps to clear it up for you!

So, if the Train CS manager was Safety trained (I must admit I'm kinda suprised all on train staff don't have that training, like Air Stewards are supposed to), would there be any practical difference between that and a Guard, beyond door operation?

The question in my mind at the moment is really why everyone isn't trained to that standard... I would want even the catering staff to be able to evacuate the train and take charge of an emergency situation if the excrement hit the ventilation unit.

 

[Flamingo]

So, if the Train CS manager was Safety trained (I must admit I'm kinda suprised all on train staff don't have that training, like Air Stewards are supposed to), would there be any practical difference between that and a Guard, beyond door operation?.

There already is a Train Manager. That's us. There is no need to replace us with anybody else.

From the point of view of on-train staff, there are two stumbling blocks
1. Replacing a shop with a trolley. On a 9 car train this isn't going to work. It's been trialled numerous times - it's never worked. There are lots of arguments against it, but the main one would be it will reduce the quantity and quality of Customer service and choice. This is something a lot of staff are passionate about.

2. Running trains without a Safety-Critical guard on-board if it suits Control to do so. This again is being put forward as being for the benefit of customers during disruption, but I have been told by managers that it would be done to cover trains rather than paying staff overtime. Very few trains require the presence of a Safety-Critical guard, but nobody knows which train it's going to be today. So again, ignoring the "Protecting members jobs" issue, this is about passenger safety and security.

Again, our whole training indoctrinates us into a safety, security and customer service ethos. We are now being told that it is not necessary, and that the DfT/FGW are prepared to take the gamble that the train where it all goes horribly wrong will not be your train.