W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[thelongestroad]

My understanding was the new commitments made by FGW were in a memo dated this morning. No idea if this was what was discussed yesterday in the meeting but another letter was sent to the RMT this morning.

I don't have the memo to hand and the below is not copied or FGWs words... but what I remember:

-No further expansion of DOO. So no further than Banbury, Didcot and Bedwyn like at present. Everything past that would need a train manager. The train manager would be competent on the traction, route, guards rules etc like at present. A train manager would be rostered for every train... even the DOO bits.

-All door control is done by the driver, but the train manager will be trained to do the doors should circumstances so dictate; for example if the DOO equipment failed.

-All cascaded west 165/166 units would have a fully competent guard.

-No movement on buffet provision.

 

[Dave1987]

Certainly progress.

 

[bb21]

-No further expansion of DOO. So no further than Banbury, Didcot and Bedwyn like at present. Everything past that would need a train manager. The train manager would be competent on the traction, route, guards rules etc like at present. A train manager would be rostered for every train... even the DOO bits.

So the train manager is essentially just a guard? Wouldn't that mean that they would command a similar level of remuneration?

 

[313103]

Certainly progress.

Well that depends on how you look at it.

As I have said already in this thread, its not about what fgw have said, its about what they haven't said!

 

[FordFocus]

Still don't see the fascination of the driver doing the doors. It's a backwards step.

It saves minimal time, talking seconds here. More chance of stop shorts and wrong side door releases which happens with DOO, the monitors go off after the train starts moving and you can't see the entire platform. It's a downgrade on safety, I'm fully aware DOO exists elsewhere on the network and it will most likely remain that way as TOCs won't invest to safer 2 man working. ASLEF have said it won't be extended anymore so that puts that to bed.......

As for the poster defending the proposed FGW trolley service by saying Crosscountry have one so it's OK, I suggest you take some medication or something herbal and look at what happened to XC satisfaction scores for catering when they took over from Virgin, one of the worst in the country

The turbos going to the west were always going to have to be fitted for guard operation either through the current system of buzzer codes or new door panels as the bodyside cameras are expensive to fit and there is a stop on new DOO monitors schemes on platforms.

 

[yorkie]

Still don't see the fascination of the driver doing the doors. It's a backwards step.

It saves minimal time, talking seconds here.

Having been on numerous trains delayed by several minutes while the Guard does revenue duties, I'm not so sure.

More chance of stop shorts and wrong side door releases which happens with DOO

I'm not so sure about that. Some sources in the rail industry say that actually the risks are about the same with or without a Guard. There are some DOO systems which have systems in place to prevent wrong side door releases.

the monitors go off after the train starts moving and you can't see the entire platform.

But the Guard can't always necessarily get a clear view either, and even if they do get to see something untoward happening there is no guarantee they can or will be able to do anything to prevent it. Some of the most serious incidents recently involved trains with a Guard.

It's a downgrade on safety

I feel safer on Strathcylde electrics or Southeastern High Speed or DLR than I do on SWT inner suburbans with non-commercial Guards, or numerous late TPE trains where the Guard remains in the back cab, but each to their own and we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[FordFocus]

Having been on numerous trains delayed by several minutes while the Guard does revenue duties, I'm not so sure.

That's a management issue with individuals. In some people's defence it's because of lack of resources supporting guards i.e. door operation panels at every door way to avoid trips to the back cab.

On the flip side of the things, I've been delayed by a minute or so whilst the Driver was relieved but completely forgot about releasing the doors. So it works both ways yorkie.

I'm not so sure about that. Some sources in the rail industry say that actually the risks are about the same with or without a Guard. There are some DOO systems which have systems in place to prevent wrong side door releases.

Stop shorts potentially but it depends on the method of working of the TOC. If the method of working is simply to release the doors when the train has stopped without looking then there is a similar risk but I'd place my money that most TOCs insists the guard checks the entire platform before releasing the doors to prevent stop shorts.

Back in my guarding days, I must have had to give '6 on the buzzer' for the driver to draw forward two or three times a month (once it was 3 times in one journey) because they've forgotten what formation the train is. If it was DOO then it's another potential risk of stopping short which seems to be treated very seriously these days..

But the Guard can't always necessarily get a clear view either, and even if they do get to see something untoward happening there is no guarantee they can or will be able to do anything to prevent it. Some of the most serious incidents recently involved trains with a Guard.

A guard is more likely to spot trouble on the platform from a window in the actual carriage than a driver sat in an enclosed cab with only a forward view. A few times I've heard of platform incidents and guard noticing trouble whilst on the move or the platform staff giving a stop signal with the guard pulling the pass comm to stop the train. So in this instance, I'd much prefer the guard doing the doors than a driver!

I feel safer on Strathcylde electrics or Southeastern High Speed or DLR than I do on SWT inner suburbans with non-commercial Guards, or numerous late TPE trains where the Guard remains in the back cab, but each to their own and we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Each to their own. What stops Strathcylde or Southeastern TEs or whoever sitting in the back cab or hidden away somewhere? Regardless if there machine is broken or not.

 

[yorkie]

That's a management issue with individuals. In some people's defence it's because of lack of resources supporting guards i.e. door operation panels at every door way to avoid trips to the back cab.

On the flip side of the things, I've been delayed by a minute or so whilst the Driver was relieved but completely forgot about releasing the doors. So it works both ways yorkie.

It probably does work both ways on occasions but I've travelled fa fair bit on Northern vs Scotrail electrics for example and have noticed numerous delays releasing doors on the former but never on the latter.

Stop shorts potentially but it depends on the method of working of the TOC. If the method of working is simply to release the doors when the train has stopped without looking then there is a similar risk but I'd place my money that most TOCs insists the guard checks the entire platform before releasing the doors to prevent stop shorts.

Back in my guarding days, I must have had to give '6 on the buzzer' for the driver to draw forward two or three times a month (once it was 3 times in one journey) because they've forgotten what formation the train is. If it was DOO then it's another potential risk of stopping short which seems to be treated very seriously these days..

But there are no guarantees that a guard will spot this any more than a driver will, and there have been instances of guards releasing doors when the train is not fully platformed.

A guard is more likely to spot trouble on the platform from a window in the actual carriage than a driver sat in an enclosed cab with only a forward view. A few times I've heard of platform incidents and guard noticing trouble whilst on the move or the platform staff giving a stop signal with the guard pulling the pass comm to stop the train. So in this instance, I'd much prefer the guard doing the doors than a driver!

Except that's not always the reality. I'd also say the biggest risks are on networks such as LU, where there are lots of passengers on platforms, and passengers are more likely to be nearer the edge, and these are DOO. If this was unsafe, I'm sure LU wouldn't be allowed to operate in this way.

Each to their own. What stops Strathcylde or Southeastern TEs or whoever sitting in the back cab or hidden away somewhere? Regardless if there machine is broken or not.

They're not allowed in the back cabs is my understanding (except, I believe, the Strathclyde ticket examiners are allowed to use the back cabs to store their belongings)

 

[Carlisle]

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.

Maybe your right but personally I would say Mr Souter is one of worlds best experts on the bus industry but has rather limited knowledge on the workings of the railways

 

[plymothian]

(remember only 41% of those eligible to vote voted for strike action)

Why are your knickers in a twist about this?
Which ever way you look at it the strike is legal.

Currently the majority who voted, not of all those balloted, deems the strike lawful.

Even if you take the new Tory reforms, more that 50% of those eligible to vote did so, and more that 40% of those who voted did so for a strike.

I feel safer on Strathcylde electrics or Southeastern High Speed or DLR than I do on SWT inner suburbans with non-commercial Guards, or numerous late TPE trains where the Guard remains in the back cab, but each to their own and we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

There's no guarantee that the "new guard" will be patrolling the train or getting involved any more than now, FGW's violence at work policy protects individual's decisions not to.

 

[the sniper]

I don't like anecdotal evidence, particularly where my experience is limited, but I did London to Dover in March, out via HS1, return on the 'lignes classiques'. On the outbound leg the OBM did a full ticket check once after Ebbsfleet, then walked through again after Ashford but without an Avantix. On the return train via Chatham I saw the Guard at least four times checking/going to check tickets. Obviously I was on the return train for double the time, but my experience was that the OBM wasn't going up and down like a blue arse fly, but they worked the train in much the same way as most Guards would on that train with that kind of stopping pattern. This is the same reason why I can't imagine that having an 'OBM' role on FGW services would be any better for commercial duties than having a TM/Guard.

I haven't experienced any of the Strathclyde Agreement area services, but I can imagine that ticket checks would/could be (sometimes far) more frequent than on a comparable Conductor worked suburban service.

 

[bnm]

Why are your knickers in a twist about this?
Which ever way you look at it the strike is legal.

I've never suggested the strike wasn't legal. I've just repeatedly pointed out that 59% of those with a voice chose to remain silent. We were told before the ballot that staff were cheesed off with FGW over IEP introduction. It appears though it is just a vocal minority who are holding sway.

Back to the legalities. This ballot would have barely scraped through had the forthcoming legislation been in place. Legislation proposed precisely so a vocal minority can't hold sway.

 

[XC90]

This ballot would have barely scraped through had the forthcoming legislation been in place. Legislation proposed precisely so a vocal minority can't hold sway.

Here here, and that is why the unions are so opposed to it. They know the majority of people are willing to improve and adapt. It's called progress, just what they are adverse to (unless its at a pace they dictate).

 

[BestWestern]

I've never suggested the strike wasn't legal. I've just repeatedly pointed out that 59% of those with a voice chose to remain silent. We were told before the ballot that staff were cheesed off with FGW over IEP introduction. It appears though it is just a vocal minority who are holding sway.

Back to the legalities. This ballot would have barely scraped through had the forthcoming legislation been in place. Legislation proposed precisely so a vocal minority can't hold sway.

"Barely scraped through" - let me help you out sir, what you mean to say is that the strike would have been declared entirely legal and would progress in precisely that way it is doing now.

In other news, further talks are apparently ongoing this morning. Results to be eagerly awaited.

Just to respond to some of Yorkie's points - I personally have no issue with Drivers releasing doors, only assuming that the train is fitted with appropriate technology to prevent it being done incorrectly. Make no mistake, on 'old school' DOO there are door incidents aplenty; reported and otherwise. Any candidly speaking Driver will tell you that. But yes, it does of course also happen with Guards at the helm.

The main issue to my mind is the dispatch. This is safer if undertaken by somebody unconnected with the duty of driving the train (regardless of RSSB/McNulty spin), and the reasons for that are both common sense and really rather obvious. The 'industry' came up with a whole new term - "PTI" Platform/Train Interface - to help deal with the significant risk identified with passenger boarding and alighting trains. Transferring responsibility for that area away from Guards and Dispatch staff and dumping it on the Driver, is a watering down of safety procedure. The Driver has other matters to attend to, scanning perhaps 20 separate, small images of doors whilst starting his train is plainly not ideal. Neither is it ideal that those images will cease to be available as soon as the train hits a speed not much more than jogging pace. Who at that point is watching this admittedly dangerous 'PTI'? Nobody. Unless of course we are going to have all of these wonderful new trains crawling out of the platform at a snail's pace. The RMT's demand for not only Guard control of dispatch but also an appropriate opening window through which to carry out this safety function, seems perfectly reasonable if we are to acknowledge and accept the stated risk. There are some frankly bizarre justifications being bandied around for all of this DOO nonsense, the most amusing being that it is safer when there are fewer people involved in a process. What utter tripe. The railway has for generation worked on the principle that everything possible should be checked and rechecked, and dispatching departing trains would seem one of the best examples of that. Is somebody trapped? Is somebody behaving dangerously on the platform (your DOO Driver will not see that until it's an imminent safety risk), is the signal off... We have layers of safety and that's how it has always been, because humans make mistakes and two or even three pairs of eyes minimises the risk considerably.

And finally, the Underground. Yorkie, it isn't overly safe really, is it. That's why they've started putting platform edge doors in. On the 'big trains', we have the 'dispatch corridor', i.e that yellow line. There is no way in this world that a platform resembling a rush hour tube train scrum would be allowed alongside a moving train, and nor should it be. The Underground gets away with it, because that's just 'how it is' and nobody is about to demand the whole lot shuts down for a long while until every station has doors along the platform edges. It isn't a valid comparison to heavy rail.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Here here, and that is why the unions are so opposed to it. They know the majority of people are willing to improve and adapt. It's called progress, just what they are adverse to (unless its at a pace they dictate).

If something means so much to them and all they have to do is put a x on a piece of paper why don't they do it? we keep hearing about only so many voted etc etc and then these same people moan and complain that they didnt get want they wanted. People are welcome to their anti-union diatribe however I had my vote and used it (against the masses I may add) but I accept the decision because I voted people who don't vote have only themselves to blame and this new law that the Tory scum want to bring in is laughable at the very least and certainly hypocritical.

 

[bb21]

The main issue to my mind is the dispatch. This is safer if undertaken by somebody unconnected with the duty of driving the train (regardless of RSSB/McNulty spin), and the reasons for that are both common sense and really rather obvious. The 'industry' came up with a whole new term - "PTI" Platform/Train Interface - to help deal with the significant risk identified with passenger boarding and alighting trains. Transferring responsibility for that area away from Guards and Dispatch staff and dumping it on the Driver, is a watering down of safety procedure. The Driver has other matters to attend to, scanning perhaps 20 separate, small images of doors whilst starting his train is plainly not ideal. Neither is it ideal that those images will cease to be available as soon as the train hits a speed not much more than jogging pace. Who at that point is watching this admittedly dangerous 'PTI'? Nobody. Unless of course we are going to have all of these wonderful new trains crawling out of the platform at a snail's pace. The RMT's demand for not only Guard control of dispatch but also an appropriate opening window through which to carry out this safety function, seems perfectly reasonable if we are to acknowledge and accept the stated risk. There are some frankly bizarre justifications being bandied around for all of this DOO nonsense, the most amusing being that it is safer when there are fewer people involved in a process. What utter tripe. The railway has for generation worked on the principle that everything possible should be checked and rechecked, and dispatching departing trains would seem one of the best examples of that. Is somebody trapped? Is somebody behaving dangerously on the platform (your DOO Driver will not see that until it's an imminent safety risk), is the signal off... We have layers of safety and that's how it has always been, because humans make mistakes and two or even three pairs of eyes minimises the risk considerably.

Most eloquently put.

I don't quite understand why anyone would want to load drivers with yet more extra responsibility when they have enough things to focus on already. Isn't there one amongst the safety videos uploaded onto youtube which gave a real-life example where the driver got distracted by the goings-on on the platform and ended up with a SPAD because he wasn't paying full attention to things in front of him? I, too, fail to understand how a driver, who now needs to spend a large chunk of his attention towards watching the goings-on at however many doors he would be watching would be able to concentrate fully on the road ahead.

On top of that, taking away responsibilities from guards (or ticket inspectors) and reassigning them to drivers would just mean the driving grade getting a raise, offsetting the savings made in the guards' grade, rostered one per train as with the drivers, so it makes no financial sense, unless their real intention is not running with as many ticket inspectors as they said they would.

All trains imo should have a guard with drop light windows so that he could immediately stop a train when a safety incident occurs during departure. No platform staff (or driver) would be able to do that. I hear some of you say, "Why can't the ticket inspector watch through the droplight during despatch?" So essentially they are the same as guards if driver door release is implemented, only now with part of their pay reassigned to the driver?

 

[HH]

On top of that, taking away responsibilities from guards (or ticket inspectors) and reassigning them to drivers would just mean the driving grade getting a raise, offsetting the savings made in the guards' grade, rostered one per train as with the drivers, so it makes no financial sense...

Regardless of opinions on this board, TOC data shows that trains run more promptly with driver operated doors (better performance increases passenger numbers) and passengers are generally happier with a member of staff who concentrates on commercial duties rather than one who sits at the back of the train doing door operations (better passenger satisfaction means more passengers). There are also operational savings through roster efficiencies. And yes this might mean that the occasional train runs with one person less.

Where big savings could occur by getting rid of staff altogether, is on services like the SWT Suburbans, where you don't actually need a commercial presence. Those guards might have a genuine reason to fear for their jobs.

 

[bb21]

Regardless of opinions on this board, TOC data shows that trains run more promptly with driver operated doors (better performance increases passenger numbers)

Can I see these statistics please? Would the "alleged" improvements be down to driver door release or driver dispatch?

Of course I forgot that safety cases can be ignored as long as the trains leave on time. :roll: Remind me what happened with that incident on the Shenfield metro a few years back?

Before anyone jumps in with the argument that guards make mistakes too. Yes, they do, but if it is human error, there is nothing stopping drivers having them too, more likely if you ask me. Take the Merseyrail guard for example, I highly doubt that driver dispatch would have produced a different outcome, should the driver also make the same mistake. Unfortunately there is no direct comparison that can be made, due to the random nature of such errors.

and passengers are generally happier with a member of staff who concentrates on commercial duties rather than one who sits at the back of the train doing door operations (better passenger satisfaction means more passengers). There are also operational savings through roster efficiencies. And yes this might mean that the occasional train runs with one person less.

So I guess guards cannot be encouraged to be more visible then, or are you generalising the whole grade because of a few isolated individuals?

FWIW I have seen ScotRail ticket inspectors sitting at the back of the train chatting to who I can only assume to be their friends, on a number of occasions, and I have been on plenty of occasions where the OBM does not make it through between St Pancras and Strood, without the train being overly busy. It happens with all grades.

In situations where guards would feel vulnerable, so would a ticket inspector working by himself.

Where big savings could occur by getting rid of staff altogether, is on services like the SWT Suburbans, where you don't actually need a commercial presence. Those guards might have a genuine reason to fear for their jobs.

FGW are proposing something for no real financial benefit if all are as promised unless they start off with the intention that less than the promised number of staff would actually be used. You wonder why people are sceptical?

 

[Carlisle]

FGW are proposing something for no real financial benefit if all are as promised unless they start off with the intention that less than the promised number of staff would actually be used. You wonder why people are sceptical?

People generally aren't sceptical as I think most realise similar systems do actually work very successfully in other parts of the UK and worldwide, ok understandably RMT is worried about its members futures and negotiations are needed but that shouldn't mean modernization can never take place

 

[Greenback]

People are sceptical because of what FGW has not said. If they wanted to commit to not running services without a safety critical member of staff on board, I for one would be much happier.

 

[bb21]

People generally aren't sceptical as I think most realise similar systems do actually work very successfully in other parts of the UK and worldwide, ok understandably RMT is worried about its members futures but that shouldn't mean modernization can never take place

"Modernisation" is an oft-abused word.

What does it really mean in the context of the FGW proposals (aside from driver door release)?

 

[Greenback]

It's not modernisation that most people object to at all, it's the way it could be used as a way of eroding staff T&C's, passenger comfort, passenger safety and all to allegedly save a couple of bob for the Treasury

 

[bb21]

It's not modernisation that most people object to at all, it's the way it could be used as a way of eroding staff T&C's, passenger comfort, passenger safety and all to allegedly save a couple of bob for the Treasury

Absolutely. What I object to is the word often being used as the alternative to "money-saving" or to put it more bluntly, "penny-pinching", under the excuse (scare-mongering some may say) that the country has no money left.

 

[Greenback]

Absolutely. What I object to is the word often being used as the alternative to "money-saving" or to put it more bluntly, "penny-pinching", under the excuse (scare-mongering some may say) that the country has no money left.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Carlisle]

Absolutely. What I object to is the word often being used as the alternative to "money-saving" or to put it more bluntly, "penny-pinching", under the excuse (scare-mongering some may say) that the country has no money left.

The best security to jobs long term is to have a modern ,efficient and of course safe railway ,those like myself who remember the closures of the late 60s and 70s realise governments are unlikey to simply keep increasing subsidies year after year as well as investing in big rail infrastructure projects too

 

[bb21]

The best security to jobs long term is to have a modern ,efficient and of course safe railway

This is all up in the air rhetoric though.

What does it mean?

 

[BestWestern]

Regardless of opinions on this board, TOC data shows that trains run more promptly with driver operated doors (better performance increases passenger numbers) and passengers are generally happier with a member of staff who concentrates on commercial duties rather than one who sits at the back of the train doing door operations (better passenger satisfaction means more passengers). There are also operational savings through roster efficiencies. And yes this might mean that the occasional train runs with one person less.

Where big savings could occur by getting rid of staff altogether, is on services like the SWT Suburbans, where you don't actually need a commercial presence. Those guards might have a genuine reason to fear for their jobs.

I'm deeply interested in this exciting parallel universe where scarcely used railways are so keen to encourage all these extra passengers onto their empty trains! I can't say I'd noticed trains leaving major stations being ghostly quiet during the peak hours...

I agree that SWT non-commercial Guards should be worried more than most.

 

[FordFocus]

But there are no guarantees that a guard will spot this any more than a driver will, and there have been instances of guards releasing doors when the train is not fully platformed.

I'd say it's a more likely chance that guard stood at a door towards the rear of the train would notice that train has stopped short (as the platform is missing) than a driver who thinks he's stopped correctly at the extreme front with no view of the rear.

Except that's not always the reality. I'd also say the biggest risks are on networks such as LU, where there are lots of passengers on platforms, and passengers are more likely to be nearer the edge, and these are DOO. If this was unsafe, I'm sure LU wouldn't be allowed to operate in this way.

Still more chance and if it saves a human life, then it's well worth it. LU is a different kettle of fish already described by another poster, BestWestern I think?

They're not allowed in the back cabs is my understanding (except, I believe, the Strathclyde ticket examiners are allowed to use the back cabs to store their belongings)

So why not prevent guards from using the back cab (unless an operational reason)? Regrading to TEs doesn't justify this reason.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Regardless of opinions on this board, TOC data shows that trains run more promptly with driver operated doors (better performance increases passenger numbers) and passengers are generally happier with a member of staff who concentrates on commercial duties rather than one who sits at the back of the train doing door operations (better passenger satisfaction means more passengers). There are also operational savings through roster efficiencies. And yes this might mean that the occasional train runs with one person less.

Where big savings could occur by getting rid of staff altogether, is on services like the SWT Suburbans, where you don't actually need a commercial presence. Those guards might have a genuine reason to fear for their jobs.

I see your one of these that puts performance above safety then :roll: :roll:

Safety
Performance
Revenue/Customer Service Duties

That's how the railway should work should work.

 

[Minilad]

This is all up in the air rhetoric though.

What does it mean?

Efficiency usually means less manpower

 

[father_jack]

100 % on.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/intercity-express-programme-talks-breakdown--strike-is-on/