W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[bb21]

True, and I am all for two staff on each train, but that pair of eyes could be a ticket inspector constantly patrolling the train, which might be better than the case on some trains with Guards (for example I've noticed this a lot on TPE during evenings in recent years) don't have anyone patrolling the train as a Guard can - unlike a travelling inspector - remain in the back cab.

Possibly, but I thought my post was in reply to one that asks for a comparison between DOO and one with a guard.

I am unclear how presence of the ticket inspector and the guard can be quantified and compared if FGW are unwilling to state exactly what sort of situations will see trains leave without a member of staff on-board, excluding the driver. The number of such occurrences could be huge, or miniscule. You may be right, but I don't know either way.

I've been on some trains where the saving would be a LOT more than 20 seconds. Yes the saving shouldn't be greater than that, as in theory timekeeping takes priority over revenue, but the reality is some trains do run late because of excessive delay opening the doors (most examples I experience of this tend to be on Northern)

Twenty seconds at every station is a long time (capital L actually). When you take the average delay due to guard being displaced across all stations on a journey, I doubt it would be more than just isolated occurrences in the grand scheme of things. Northern probably suffer from it a bit more but FGW high speed services will be very unlikely to come anywhere near that figure.

Nevertheless I do agree with driver door release. Even if the amount of time saved is small, it helps present an image of better efficiency, with virtually no drawback.

 

[313103]

Incidentally, I was travelling on board a London Overground service the other day, and noted that on average from the train stopping to the doors opening took 10-11 seconds. As a guard, I can open my local door, check the platform and release the other doors safely a lot faster than that!

.

Yes the service on London Overground is now slower between Richmond and Stratford is far slower then when I first went there in 1993 and is now slower since 2013when doo came in.

 

[craigybagel]

.

Yes the service on London Overground is now slower between Richmond and Stratford is far slower then when I first went there in 1993 and is now slower since 2013when doo came in.

It was that line I was on, and a painful experience it was. I know its not the case for all DOO or Driver opening Guard closing services but it does show that it doesn't necessarily speed things up.

 

[bnm]

More seats, so a five car iep will be replacing a 8 car hst with the same frequency on the Swansea to London line? If that's the case I would hate to see the seating layout on a iep. FGW are not improving the service to Swansea. the only reason why the timetable is so long on duel times is down to ppm for a start the networks poor train regulations, not because it takes longer to dispatch a train.

FGW also say that services will improve yet the summer service to Pembroke Dock will be permanently withdrawn beyond Carmethen when the ieps are rolled out, so rather than improving in that part of the country they are actually withdrawing services.

Yes. More seats. I was taking a holistic network wide view.

As for South Wales, we really don't know yet what services will run. Only the reference draft timetable has been published and that was for the benefit of the manufacturer to have a base train plan to work from.

Should that base train plan be reflected in the actual timetable then 5 cars would be adequate from Swansea <-> London off peak bearing in mind the skipping of stops further up the line - fast from Newport to Reading. Morning peak from Swansea will see nearly all services operated by 9 cars or doubled up 5 cars. From 4pm to 10pm from Paddington the service could be, based on that train plan, 9 car or doubled up 5 cars on all services.

If that draft timetable bears any reflection on the reality then the Greater Western franchisee (it's important to note that the services might not be provided by First Group beyond 2019) will be improving the service to Swansea. More seats in the peaks and considerably faster journey times. 2hrs 43 mins to London versus over 3 hours currently.

 

[Minilad]

I remember the last time a TOC replaced 7 and 8 coach trains with 5 coach ones. Promising all kinds of benefits. How did that go again

 

[bnm]

As well as could be expected based on incorrect forecasts of passenger growth. A clockface timetable across the core network with increased frequency. Vastly improved reliability.

The introduction of Voyagers hardly turned people away from the network.

I'll concede that more should have been done to address the unprecedented growth in passenger numbers. Lengthening Voyagers or ordering new trains. But with the way the franchise was let (cheapest bid/best returns to Treasury) the only real option was for Arriva to snap up some available HSTs.

 

[313103]

I remember the last time a TOC replaced 7 and 8 coach trains with 5 coach ones. Promising all kinds of benefits. How did that go again

Oh yes was that not Virgin Cross Country:roll: look at what they had and look at what we have now as Cross Country trains. Trains that really only serve the company rather then the travelling public.

It all went rather pear shape if memory serves me right.

 

[bb21]

More seats than the trains they are replacing.

More staff are being employed.

Faster journey times because of improved acceleration and reduced dwell times. Bristol to London 22 minutes faster. Cardiff 17 minutes.

True, but FGW are implying in their statement that existing working practice is stopping these from happening which is a load of bull, so I was only looking at the impact guards can have on these issues.

The trains will still have more seats compared to today. Whatever working practice is adopted won't change that.

If they are indeed planning on hiring more staff and improving visibility, there is nothing stopping them employing more staff, guards as things currently stand or a new grade for ticket inspectors to work alongside guards. Of course I am not stupid. That won't happen because it will cost them money, but to imply that existing working practice is stopping that from happening is ridiculous.

Trains are faster because mechanically they are more advanced. How existing working practice by guards continuing is stopping that from happening is beyond me.

It is all about spin. Both sides are at it, not just the RMT.

Plymouth and Cornwall can't really be used as a comparison at the moment between existing and future Greater Western franchise rolling stock. No decision yet on the rolling stock for the long distance Greater Western services to the far west. Frequency will increase though, and thus seats, whether it's AT300s or HSTs soldiering on to the far west. What you can compare though is Voyagers versus HSTs between Penzance and Plymouth. Take the 0828 XC versus the 1000 FGW. Both with the same number of stops at the same stations. The XC is 7 minutes quicker to Plymouth. By Taunton the XC is 12 minutes quicker overall from Penzance despite having dwelled at Plymouth for 7 minutes and Exeter for 4 minutes.

Voyagers are much better at acceleration and that is a design feature. That can be achieved by FGW if new trains with comparable characteristics are used on the same route.

If you don't like my example of the far south west, change that for something like Bristol to Paddington, roughly six stops so 120 seconds saved at a generous estimate. That is two minutes off a 105-minute journey because drivers are releasing the doors instead of guards - still hardly worth worrying over.

 

[bnm]

It all went rather pear shape if memory serves me right.

How so? I travel with CrossCountry regularly. I'm no fan of Voyagers for a variety of reasons, and I decry CrossCountry's manipulation of the fares system, but the network still operates and hasn't gone 'pear shaped'.

I certainly don't want to go back to the days of an infrequent, unreliable service such as we had during the latter years of BR and early years of Virgin CrossCountry. Back then it was at best a two hourly service on much of the network using clapped out locos and ropey Mk2s.

Now I can get from Bristol to Exeter, Plymouth, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, every hour. I can almost always get a seat too thanks to the Ten Minute reservation system. Most importantly, I can be almost certain of getting to my destination. Rarely are delays on the CrossCountry network down to them. Their fleet reliability is the best for long distance diesels. Delays are nearly always attributed to other oerators or outside influence.

My second worst ever train delay was a trip from Taunton to Manchester with Virgin CrossCountry in their early days. Over three and a half hours because our Class 47 decided to cook itself and the replacement loco broke down.

 

[bnm]

If you don't like my example of the far south west, change that for something like Bristol to Paddington, roughly six stops so 120 seconds saved at a generous estimate. That is two minutes off a 105-minute journey because drivers are releasing the doors instead of guards - still hardly worth worrying over.

You did see the part of my post where I mentioned 22 minutes faster from Bristol to Paddington? That's from Temple Meads via Bristol Parkway then non-stop, but it will be every half hour.

If you want to compare the current 105 minute journey from Bristol TM with its stops at Bath Spa, Chippenham, Swindon, Didcot, Reading and London, that is proposed* with IEP to be 97 minutes. 8 minutes quicker.

*Draft train plan. See attachment (.xls spreadsheet).

 

[bb21]

You did see the part of my post where I mentioned 22 minutes faster from Bristol to Paddington? That's from Temple Meads via Bristol Parkway then non-stop, but it will be every half hour.

If you want to compare the current 105 minute journey from Bristol TM with its stops at Bath Spa, Chippenham, Swindon, Didcot, Reading and London, that is proposed* with IEP to be 97 minutes. 8 minutes quicker.

*Draft train plan. See attachment (.xls spreadsheet).

I believe you are missing my point.

It doesn't matter which route it is that new trains will be operating on, the overwhelming majority of any saving in time will be due to better rolling stock characteristics. Any example I gave was to purely illustrate that changes in working practice makes very little practical difference, so resistance from some sections of railway staff is hardly going to stop journey time improvements happening as FGW seemed to imply in their statement.

 

[yorkie]

Yes the service on London Overground is now slower between Richmond and Stratford is far slower then when I first went there in 1993 and is now slower since 2013when doo came in.

In 2005 it was 59mins for a Richmond-Stratford train. It's a couple of minutes slower today, with trains typically arriving a minute early. Passenger numbers are much higher today (ie, longer dwells).

But any further discussion should be in a new thread please (feel free to make one!)

 

[bnm]

I believe you are missing my point.

My apologies. I didn't realise from your posts that your replies to me were focusing solely on the time savings to be had from changes to doors and their operation. Actually no. I'm guilty of skim reading your recent posts. Sorry about that.

Having re-read FGW's statement I can see why you picked up on that. I missed it. Mea culpa.

 

[bb21]

My apologies. I didn't realise from your posts that your replies to me were focusing solely on the time savings to be had from changes to doors and their operation. Actually no. I'm guilty of skim reading your recent posts. Sorry about that.

Having re-read FGW's statement I can see why you picked up on that. I missed it. Mea culpa.

No need to apologise. I was very rushed when typing earlier posts up on the train so couldn't expand on them as much as I would at home.

I would have preferred it more (and I believe so would a lot of others) if they just came out and talked straight about the need to save money given the situation with proposed subsidy cuts and explained the issues they faced rather than treating the general public like idiots. I would wager that they would have more sympathy in their endeavours that way but somehow these days everything seems to be about spin.

 

[313103]

How so? I travel with CrossCountry regularly. I'm no fan of Voyagers for a variety of reasons, and I decry CrossCountry's manipulation of the fares system, but the network still operates and hasn't gone 'pear shaped'.

I certainly don't want to go back to the days of an infrequent, unreliable service such as we had during the latter years of BR and early years of Virgin CrossCountry. Back then it was at best a two hourly service on much of the network using clapped out locos and ropey Mk2s.

Now I can get from Bristol to Exeter, Plymouth, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, every hour. I can almost always get a seat too thanks to the Ten Minute reservation system. Most importantly, I can be almost certain of getting to my destination. Rarely are delays on the CrossCountry network down to them. Their fleet reliability is the best for long distance diesels. Delays are nearly always attributed to other oerators or outside influence.

My second worst ever train delay was a trip from Taunton to Manchester with Virgin CrossCountry in their early days. Over three and a half hours because our Class 47 decided to cook itself and the replacement loco broke down.

Yes and I regularly use to do Leeds to Swansea on one train, now if I do the trip it is a change at either one of the following stations Bristol Parkway, Birmingham New Street or Manchester Piccadilly and sometimes it is a change at Birmingham New Street and Cardiff Central. I also use to go from Reading to Kensington Olympia yet another service withdrawn, Now you have to either go all the way into Paddington and then get the tube or change at Clapham Junction.

 

[yorkie]

There will always be winners and losers with a timetable recast, but I suggest the XC discussion goes in a separate thread. Feel free to create one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Be interesting to see a guard in the back cab of a hst.

The same principle could easily apply to the van area.

 

[bnm]

There will always be winners and losers with a timetable recast, but I suggest the XC discussion goes in a separate thread. Feel free to create one.

May I suggest the same for Richmond-Stratford?

 

[regulation9]

I

The example that the company keeps giving us is Pad to Reading. But there is NO commitment that Pad-Reading is the only track that will be run DOO. And there is no reason why any incident won't happen on a Turbo either. The 20 year-old train on the opposite platform should not be operated without a guard either, but if you are happy to travel on it, good for you.

What is your source for those figures - it's the first I have heard of them. And that number of staff would be lost in 12-18 months through natural wastage. And spread across every depot, covering the extra trains that will be running, that's probably the minimum required.

I just asked my manager and he told me. I also asked about the extra jobs. Nothing to do with natural wastage apparently. There would be Train Managers on Pad-Oxfords which means more. We have had stuff through the post explaining that. The extra Customer Hosts are because more trains will have 2 hosts and there are more trains being operated.

 

[BestWestern]

Most RMT members cringed at that one, and many many wondered how we could go about getting our membership fees rebated.

Indeed. A strange choice of causes to support and not support. Still, each to their own. Thankfully it makes no difference to the big picture.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You did see the part of my post where I mentioned 22 minutes faster from Bristol to Paddington? That's from Temple Meads via Bristol Parkway then non-stop, but it will be every half hour.

If you want to compare the current 105 minute journey from Bristol TM with its stops at Bath Spa, Chippenham, Swindon, Didcot, Reading and London, that is proposed* with IEP to be 97 minutes. 8 minutes quicker.

*Draft train plan. See attachment (.xls spreadsheet).

Have you ever actually studied a TM working an HST? Ever actually watched this enormous delay that you seem to feel exists at every single stop before the doors are unlocked?

Door operation on HSTs is without doubt amongst the fastest anywhere on the network. Why? Because the TM is already observing the thing arrive and stop safely and correctly in the platform, via the droplight window, and there is no local door procedure. So in the vast majority of cases, the doors release almost immediately after the train comes to a stop. There is very little delay, except in cases where the TM has failed to prepare himself, which is another issue. Any time savings through door operation with IEP will come from power doors over slam doors, it has nothing to do with the Guard not releasing those doors. That advanage is really rather obvious and will always exist, regardless.

Again, we see the vague, untrue implication that 'DOO is better' - and again, it's b*ll*x... :roll:

 

[bnm]

Eh? You've quoted me in the preceding post BestWestern, and yet your response appears to have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Where have I talked about 'enormous delays at every single stop' with TM HST door operation?

Take more water with it.

 

[LowLevel]

I think one thing that needs to be published is the full safety assessment and operations methodology from VTEC and FGW for these trains. The RMT to my mind score points straight away by the simple fact another eminent operator agrees with them so it would be interesting to see why there is such a difference.

Stagecoach aren't exactly known for frittering away money for no reason.

 

[Carlisle]

I think one thing that needs to be published is the full safety assessment and operations methodology from VTEC and FGW for these trains. The RMT to my mind score points straight away by the simple fact another eminent operator agrees with them so it would be interesting to see why there is such a difference.

Stagecoach aren't exactly known for frittering away money for no reason.

Yes I have no idea who's right but as DFT is investing £billions in the GWML, electrification, ETRMS , new trains etc I presume they are keen to see the full use/benefit of all the expensive technology they are purchasing .
As far as I know Stagecoach have not been a fan of any type of DOO/DCO since 1998 when they decided to cancel their SWT suburban scheme and have largely supported the RMTs position on it ever since

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Have you ever actually studied a TM working an HST? Ever actually watched this enormous delay that you seem to feel exists at every single stop before the doors are unlocked?

Door operation on HSTs is without doubt amongst the fastest anywhere on the network. Why? Because the TM is already observing the thing arrive and stop safely and correctly in the platform, via the droplight window, and there is no local door procedure. So in the vast majority of cases, the doors release almost immediately after the train comes to a stop. There is very little delay, except in cases where the TM has failed to prepare himself, which is another issue. Any time savings through door operation with IEP will come from power doors over slam doors, it has nothing to do with the Guard not releasing those doors. That advanage is really rather obvious and will always exist, regardless.

If a route and traction on that route is all fitted for automatic SDO (probably using blasies), how much time if any is saved?

 

[plymothian]

As proof, all the reports I've seen that have interviewed the public, they don't give a toss about the reason for this dispute, only that it is "disgusting" and "appalling", and in one person's opinion "this is the 4th strike within a few weeks".

 

[Flamingo]

I just asked my manager and he told me. I also asked about the extra jobs. Nothing to do with natural wastage apparently. There would be Train Managers on Pad-Oxfords which means more. We have had stuff through the post explaining that. The extra Customer Hosts are because more trains will have 2 hosts and there are more trains being operated.

I had the same stuff - it didn't convince me (and also arrived LONG after most people had voted).

Most trains already have two hosts - but on-train staff think that passengers needs will be better met in terms of product quality and quantity by having a shop/cafe.

Figures wise, there was approximatly (rough figures) 1400 out of 2700 staff voted, if the figures are taken at face value. 80-90% of that sample felt strongly enough that the reassurances offered by FGW were not good enough. By any standard, that is a pretty comprehensive sample, both in size and result. Most opinion polls are on a much smaller sample size, and although they may not be self-sellecting in the same manner, the overwhelming size of the YES vote would more than override any statistical bias from the number that felt strongly enough to return papers. Indeed, as far as I have heard, most people who didn't return papers didn't because they knew the result would be the one they wanted.

 

[bnm]

Indeed, as far as I have heard, most people who didn't return papers didn't because they knew the result would be the one they wanted.

So, rather than send a message loud and clear to FGW, the silent majority, as you would have us believe (remember only 41% of those eligible to vote voted for strike action), decided that the issue was so important to them they couldn't be bothered to vote.

Also, that's very good hearing you have. The 1300 members who didn't vote are presumably spread across the entire network, yet you've heard that most of them decided not to vote because the result was a foregone conclusion.

I seen much impassioned talk from those in favour of the industrial action and I respect their opinions despite not agreeing with them, but I'm sorry, your reasoning for the poor turnout and ballot result is the weakest argument I've yet read in favour of the strike. :roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

As far as I know Stagecoach have not been a fan of any type of DOO/DCO since 1998 when they decided to cancel their SWT suburban scheme and have largely supported the RMTs position on it ever since

Because they want and value good industrial relations, not necessarily because they think DOO is unsafe or otherwise undesirable, possibly?

Souter is a shrewd businessman.

 

[RPI]

I had the same stuff - it didn't convince me (and also arrived LONG after most people had voted).

Most trains already have two hosts - but on-train staff think that passengers needs will be better met in terms of product quality and quantity by having a shop/cafe.

Figures wise, there was approximatly (rough figures) 1400 out of 2700 staff voted, if the figures are taken at face value. 80-90% of that sample felt strongly enough that the reassurances offered by FGW were not good enough. By any standard, that is a pretty comprehensive sample, both in size and result. Most opinion polls are on a much smaller sample size, and although they may not be self-sellecting in the same manner, the overwhelming size of the YES vote would more than override any statistical bias from the number that felt strongly enough to return papers. Indeed, as far as I have heard, most people who didn't return papers didn't because they knew the result would be the one they wanted.

I've stayed out of this one until now and I'm on the fence.I personally feel that the proposal from FGW is fine but it's whether we can trust them, ie running without a TM in emergencies starts as a one off, then becomes more frequent. As for the vote well I've heard some of the new people boasting how it was just "a day off" with some even under the illusion that they would get a day off with pay.... yes really..... a lot of scaremongering and borderline bullying from some reps which I've seen first hand with my own eyes.
from skimming this thread I haven't seen reference to the additional assurances that FGW provided yesterday which was that they now have said DOO would not be implemented outside of the current DOO area (Bedwyn/Oxford/Banbury).

 

[bnm]

I haven't seen reference to the additional assurances that FGW provided yesterday which was that they now have said DOO would not be implemented outside of the current DOO area (Bedwyn/Oxford/Banbury).

That seems like a reasonable additional commitment to put to the membership. But the **** (self censored word now deemed inappropriate) RMT negotiators apparently dismissed it out of hand.