W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[the sniper]

Which claim?

This one, if you follow the quotes back:

Actually with two people you have double the chance of a mistake being made. It's actually one of the reasons given for why DOO can be safer!

It's a ridiculous assertion. It's more likely that two people we fail to notice a starting signal at danger than one? It's more likely that two people will fail to notice someone being caught in the doors than one? It's more likely that two people will miss someone falling down the gap than one? This is clearly nonsense.

The link I provided explains that the very small increased risk of a SASSPAD "might be indicative of the higher levels of mental workload that drivers experience as a result of having to carry out all dispatch-related actions and safety checks in addition to driving the train under such circumstances". This does not support you claim.

 

[Flamingo]

There are numerous studies carried out with checking drugs in the Health environment. They have found that one person checking is acceptable with certain lower risk drugs, but with high-risk items like Blood Transfusions, Controlled Drugs (eg opiates) and Chemotherapy then having two people check it is the correct drug, in the correct dose being given to the correctly identified patient is safer, and this is the method of working adopted.

The question to ask is, is starting to move a train on a signal-controlled platform a low-risk or high-risk activity? Current industry thinking is that it is a high-risk activity.

 

[68000]

Just about to head off to work on the train which is DOO and has been for decades - It has proved to be safe and will be safe for my journey today
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Current industry thinking is that it is a high-risk activity.

What is the source for this and how is it quantified?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is there a reason why some stock doesn't have any drop-down window for guards to use?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there a reason why some stock doesn't have any drop-down window for guards to use?

These tend to be door windows (the only place there's really space for it), and thus can't be provided in stock with sliding (rather than semi-manual plug or completely manual) doors because opening the door might chop the guard's head off.

 

[Flamingo]

What is the source for this and how is it quantified?

If starting to move against a red or giving a right away, all staff involved are taken off-duty, drug and alcohol checked, interviewed, reported to RAIB for investigation, put on special supervision and training plans might be some clue as to how seriously this is taken...

 

[HH]

It's a ridiculous assertion. It's more likely that two people we fail to notice a starting signal at danger than one? It's more likely that two people will fail to notice someone being caught in the doors than one? It's more likely that two people will miss someone falling down the gap than one? This is clearly nonsense.

I agree that what you've written is clearly nonsense.

Passing a starting signal at danger is a very rare occurrence. To put it into perspective, one TOC I know has around 20 SPADs all year, running 2000 trains a day. Most, if not all, of those SPADs are not at starting signals. So the very small fraction of a percent where the driver passes a starting signal at danger would become an even smaller fraction, i.e. there will be very little difference in the number of such SPADs across the network.

Why did we have the Merseyrail and TPE incidents? Simply because the two members of staff have different duties and therefore there may well be no double check.

Finally, I reiterate, more people means more mistakes. Let me use a sporting analogy. Take cricket. You have two batsmen. One might be prone to making errors against pace, the other against spin. Additionally, they also have the opportunity for communication errors - they can run each other out.

So while there may be more errors stopped, there will be more errors made in the first place. The net result is difficult to predict.

 

[Jonfun]

For a start LU's annual passenger count is 1.265 billion (source)...

Ah, so you're including the London Underground. Fair enough, it makes your figures add up - but I would argue that if we only consider actual trains (ie not subways/trams/pods/etc), your assertion would be incorrect.

 

[Flamingo]

That's being a bit disengenious, HH. Starting signals being passed at danger are rare. Staff getting the starting signal wrong is relatively common, and is pretty much always picked up by another member of the train crew before the train moves. If only one person is checking, who is going to pick them up before the train moves.

 

[SWTH]

HH, stop being so bloody ridiculous.

Comparing safety critical actions to cricket? Are you really suggesting that as a comparable activity?

 

[HH]

That's being a bit disengenious, HH. Starting signals being passed at danger are rare. Staff getting the starting signal wrong is relatively common, and is pretty much always picked up by another member of the train crew before the train moves. If only one person is checking, who is going to pick them up before the train moves.

That TOC I talked about is largely DOO. They're rare, period.

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

HH, stop being so bloody ridiculous.

Comparing safety critical actions to cricket? Are you really suggesting that as a comparable activity?

No. But you are clearly saying that I did. Whereas I was just using it as a simile. Here, let me google that for you, so that you understand.

It makes no difference what the activity is, errors still get made.

To err is human, as Alexander Pope stated, many, many years ago.

 

[Carlisle]

I agree that what you've written is clearly nonsense.

Passing a starting signal at danger is a very rare occurrence. To put it into perspective, one TOC I know has around 20 SPADs all year, running 2000 trains a day. Most, if not all, of those SPADs are not at starting signals. So the very small fraction of a percent where the driver passes a starting signal at danger would become an even smaller fraction, i.e. there will be very little difference in the number of such SPADs across the network.

Why did we have the Merseyrail and TPE incidents? Simply because the two members of staff have different duties and therefore there may well be no double check.

Finally, I reiterate, more people means more mistakes. Let me use a sporting analogy. Take cricket. You have two batsmen. One might be prone to making errors against pace, the other against spin. Additionally, they also have the opportunity for communication errors - they can run each other out.

So while there may be more errors stopped, there will be more errors made in the first place. The net result is difficult to predict.

Whilst I don't agree entirely with the above argument, there must be some truth in it because all TOCs these days have a very strict policy on who is or is not permitted to accompany the driver in their cab

 

[notadriver]

Distracting the driver in a pcv vehicle is not permitted while the vehicle is in motion on the same way.

 

[FordFocus]

I see we're on a roll of empty rhetoric today. I, personally, haven't put anything before anything. I've been trying to explain to the hard of understanding what the business case is.

Can't help but smile at that for your sheer lunacy of trying to justify your point about performance been a major factor in this. Your trying to build a business case on removing a safety critical person from the key dispatch process of a train from a platform because it saves a few seconds at each stations.

Originally Posted by HH
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.

That would imply to me your in favour of increasing the PTI risk by removing staff for the sake of performance (negligible increases, if any). The removal of staff also saves money which the passenger won't see any of.

Another open question, why do FGW see fit to try and implement this DOO and Trolley nonsense when VTEC have openly said they'll do the opposite and keep guards as they are and keep or enhance catering facilities. What makes these InterCity franchises different?

 

[Carlisle]

Another open question, why do FGW see fit to try and implement this DOO and Trolley nonsense when VTEC have openly said they'll do the opposite and keep guards as they are and keep or enhance catering facilities. What makes these InterCity franchises different?

Yes you wonder if DFT are now firmly behind going ahead with conversion to driver controlled doors why didn't they specify it on the East Coast too ?.if they had it would likely have made all these proposed changes much easier to implement for all concerned

 

[HH]

Yes you wonder if DFT are now firmly behind going ahead with conversion to driver controlled doors why didn't they specify it on the East Coast too ?.if they had it would likely have made all these proposed changes much easier to implement for all concerned

East Coast was let earlier. There's been a wind of change. You might think it has to do with a former first class partner. You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

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

Can't help but smile at that for your sheer lunacy of trying to justify your point about performance been a major factor in this. Your trying to build a business case on removing a safety critical person from the key dispatch process of a train from a platform because it saves a few seconds at each stations.

And I can't help but despair at your inadequate comprehension skills. I said performance was one factor. Nor am I trying to build a business case - I'm telling you what the business case is. I know, I've seen several. If you actually understood anything about running trains then you'd realise that not delaying or cancelling trains through lack of a guard is also a performance factor. Quite a big one in performance terms.

That would imply to me your in favour of increasing the PTI risk by removing staff for the sake of performance (negligible increases, if any). The removal of staff also saves money which the passenger won't see any of.

You can clearly draw implications from no evidence. Regarding the money, we've already been through the point that the additional money goes to the treasury. What the government does with it is the government's business. The passenger can always try voting for a new government if he/she/it feels aggrieved.

Another open question, why do FGW see fit to try and implement this DOO and Trolley nonsense when VTEC have openly said they'll do the opposite and keep guards as they are and keep or enhance catering facilities. What makes these InterCity franchises different?

I don't know. My best guess (and unlike the above it is only a guess) is that they are doing it because it's what the DfT wants, and, unlike Stagecoach with SWT, they want to keep their franchise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know. My best guess (and unlike the above it is only a guess) is that they are doing it because it's what the DfT wants, and, unlike Stagecoach with SWT, they want to keep their franchise.

Possibly so. It's also possible that the buffet issue is caused by a desire to put seats there, as East Coast is not anywhere near as seriously overcrowded as fGW (even though that issue is mainly caused by Reading commuters, and I do wonder if a timetable recast to allow a half hourly fast 12-car Reading-Padd service should have been considered - many of the ICs would be fine at 5-car if there were no Reading commuters thereon).

 

[Clarence Yard]

I can answer the buffet question. The DfT closed the design down for the GW sets way before the East Coast ones. They tried to persuade all the bidders for the East Coast to follow suit but there was a bit of a revolt on that.

I didn't think that there was an option to move away from DCO on the East Coast sets so I don't know how Virgin are doing it. But there was certainly a little more scope to alter things on the EC sets than on the GW ones.

There wasn't any scope to alter the maintenance arrangements. That was a done deal by the DfT which all bidders/operators have to comply with. The RMT are not going to get anywhere with that one.

 

[Dave1987]

Just about to head off to work on the train which is DOO and has been for decades - It has proved to be safe and will be safe for my journey today
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What is the source for this and how is it quantified?

DOO is "safe" but puts a larger workload on the driver. If your driver on your DOO service is in the middle of a 20mph ESR, and the signal at the end of the platform is faulty and needs to be passed at danger. Now the risks are increased significantly as the drivers workload has shot through the roof and is danger of forgetting the 20 mph ESR. In situations like that a guard is invaluable. End of really....

 

[FordFocus]

And I can't help but despair at your inadequate comprehension skills. I said performance was one factor. Nor am I trying to build a business case - I'm telling you what the business case is. I know, I've seen several. If you actually understood anything about running trains then you'd realise that not delaying or cancelling trains through lack of a guard is also a performance factor. Quite a big one in performance terms.

Still remains of this idea of performance is the bigger priority now above proper crewing arrangements that are safer, whether it's your opinion, the DfT, Firsts or my next door neighbours cat opinion.. ..

I'm fully aware of how trains run but then again I drive both non DOO and DOO trains so what do I know about rostering and disruption

Like I mentioned before, if trains are getting cancelled regularly for a lack of guard then it means that the TOC itself are lacking resources either not filling vacancies, over reliance on overtime/goodwill or the diagramming for traincrew is too tight with no contingency for disrupted services. This is a TOC problem, there is no need to try and dress this up that this DCO will come in and save the day. If anything DCO creates more of a problem as non DOO drivers have to be trained and have conditions renegotiated. With ASLEF already committing to no more DOO then I think this problem has more or less solved itself.

You can clearly draw implications from no evidence. Regarding the money, we've already been through the point that the additional money goes to the treasury. What the government does with it is the government's business. The passenger can always try voting for a new government if he/she/it feels aggrieved.

If I paid £150 a month for my season ticket, I'd want the same level of staffing on my train, if not more. FGW say that the train will DOO during disruption and there isn't a guard which is backwards. The time you do need the guards skills is during disruption, when you've stopped for a while in the middle of nowhere a guard communicating with passengers is invaluable whether it be service information or walking through with connections. DOO drivers are stuck in a cab awaiting a call from a signaller or out in the train trying to reset circuit breakers.

I await the response from the 'what's better, a train with no guard or a rail replacement bus'. My response is similar to what I wrote before, properly staff depots, have cover traincrew and create contingency plans that actually work and it's unlikely this question needs to be asked in the first place.

I don't know. My best guess (and unlike the above it is only a guess) is that they are doing it because it's what the DfT wants, and, unlike Stagecoach with SWT, they want to keep their franchise.

I'd probably go with that. I get the feeling First don't want to lose the cash cow that is FGW with FCC, Scotrail been lost with TPE possibly going as well, so will bow down to the hand that feeds and lick it clean.

 

[thelongestroad]

Still remains of this idea of performance is the bigger priority now above proper crewing arrangements that are safer, whether it's your opinion, the DfT, Firsts or my next door neighbours cat opinion.. ..

I'm fully aware of how trains run but then again I drive both non DOO and DOO trains so what do I know about rostering and disruption

Like I mentioned before, if trains are getting cancelled regularly for a lack of guard then it means that the TOC itself are lacking resources either not filling vacancies, over reliance on overtime/goodwill or the diagramming for traincrew is too tight with no contingency for disrupted services. This is a TOC problem, there is no need to try and dress this up that this DCO will come in and save the day. If anything DCO creates more of a problem as non DOO drivers have to be trained and have conditions renegotiated. With ASLEF already committing to no more DOO then I think this problem has more or less solved itself.




If I paid £150 a month for my season ticket, I'd want the same level of staffing on my train, if not more. FGW say that the train will DOO during disruption and there isn't a guard which is backwards. The time you do need the guards skills is during disruption, when you've stopped for a while in the middle of nowhere a guard communicating with passengers is invaluable whether it be service information or walking through with connections. DOO drivers are stuck in a cab awaiting a call from a signaller or out in the train trying to reset circuit breakers.

I await the response from the 'what's better, a train with no guard or a rail replacement bus'. My response is similar to what I wrote before, properly staff depots, have cover traincrew and create contingency plans that actually work and it's unlikely this question needs to be asked in the first place.




I'd probably go with that. I get the feeling First don't want to lose the cash cow that is FGW with FCC, Scotrail been lost with TPE possibly going as well, so will bow down to the hand that feeds and lick it clean.

Post of the year sir!

 

[SWTH]

No. But you are clearly saying that I did. Whereas I was just using it as a simile. Here, let me google that for you, so that you understand.

It makes no difference what the activity is, errors still get made.

To err is human, as Alexander Pope stated, many, many years ago.

I am perfectly familiar with similes, if you cannot see the issue with your simile then I suggest you discontinue using them. However, perhaps you could also use the website you linked to to find the definition of the word 'perception'. Your posts are perceived in such a way as to make them sound ridiculous, which does no favours for the position you are arguing from.

 

[Carlisle]

properly staff depots, have cover traincrew and create contingency plans that actually work and it's unlikely this question needs to be asked in the first place.
.

Can you come up with an idea to make the railways profitable?. If not then DFT have good reason to try and seek longer term efficiencies and more flexible working arrangements than perhaps currently exist. If you want our railways to have a bright and long lasting future then surely that makes more sense than merely assuming governments will be willing to subsidize everything in its current form/costs indefinitely

 

[Temple Meads]

I still haven't seen one good reason for DOO bar increasing revenue...

Which is precisely why I would fully support further industrial action. (and I have already had [leisure] travel plans disrupted by the current action)

 

[the sniper]

I agree that what you've written is clearly nonsense

Any chance we can have some evidence for your statement below though? No irrelevant cricket analogies please that bear no relation to the scenarios we're concerned with. We're looking a scenarios in which one person can identify and prevent another person's mistake before it has any impact or any chance to be acted upon. You say that the two different people have two different duties, but the rule book says that Platform Staff, Guard and Driver must check any starting signal before dispatch/departure. It is the responsibility of the Driver and Guard to look out when starting away if safe to do so to make sure "everything is in order". How does removing someone from a verification process make it more likely that correct verification will be achieved? How can miscommunication lead to increased danger in this verification process scenario? If you want an analogy, how would it be better to check a publication with just one proofreader rather than with two or three proofreaders?

Actually with two people you have double the chance of a mistake being made. It's actually one of the reasons given for why DOO can be safer!

Where is this reason given? Who is giving this reasoning? Can you link us to their evidence? If Driver Only train dispatch is safer I'd have thought the DfT/TOCs would be shouting these stats/examples from the roof tops, as it undermines one of the reasons for having a Guard. The only evidence I could find, which I linked, indicated that there was a very small increased risk of SASSPADS under DOO. No doubt very small, which I said, but this does not support your argument. You keep accusing us of not using evidence, yet you make statements like this and just expect us to accept it because you say so. Or because your evidence is secret...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Possibly so. It's also possible that the buffet issue is caused by a desire to put seats there, as East Coast is not anywhere near as seriously overcrowded as fGW (even though that issue is mainly caused by Reading commuters, and I do wonder if a timetable recast to allow a half hourly fast 12-car Reading-Padd service should have been considered - many of the ICs would be fine at 5-car if there were no Reading commuters thereon).

How much further west does the commuter traffic come? Could some Desiro cities be ordered to take the commuter traffic (would the paths exist)?

How much of the commuter traffic on FGW disappear once Crossrail trains start running?

 

[HH]

The only evidence I could find, which I linked, indicated that there was a very small increased risk of SASSPADS under DOO. No doubt very small, which I said, but this does not support your argument. You keep accusing us of not using evidence, yet you make statements like this and just expect us to accept it because you say so. Or because your evidence is secret...

About time we dealt with this. How do they assess these risks? I freely admit to not being a safety expert so a while back I asked some people who are.

The model is that operational incidents form a pyramid - there's more 'stopped shorts' than there are SPADs; more SPADs than Fatalities. What they do is assign values to operational incidents, so a SPAD equates to (for example) 0.1 fatalities, etc. These values are arbitrary (a bit like the definition of obese) and the pyramid model is really a hypothesis; so it fits what we observe, but there's no proof there is a causal link. In other words, your 1.8 fatality risk is an estimate based on a hypothesis, based on historical evidence. Undoubtedly if the evidence was from a different data set, for example for the last 10 years, you would come up with a different answer. That answer might be bigger and it might be smaller; it might even draw the opposite conclusion. Knowing all this I don't put a great deal of faith in the 1.8 figure.

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

Still remains of this idea of performance is the bigger priority now above proper crewing arrangements that are safer, whether it's your opinion, the DfT, Firsts or my next door neighbours cat opinion.. ..

No. It's one factor.

I'm fully aware of how trains run but then again I drive both non DOO and DOO trains so what do I know about rostering and disruption

Then you're just being disingenuous.

Like I mentioned before, if trains are getting cancelled regularly for a lack of guard then it means that the TOC itself are lacking resources either not filling vacancies, over reliance on overtime/goodwill or the diagramming for traincrew is too tight with no contingency for disrupted services. This is a TOC problem, there is no need to try and dress this up that this DCO will come in and save the day. If anything DCO creates more of a problem as non DOO drivers have to be trained and have conditions renegotiated.

If it were regularly I would agree. But it doesn't have to be regularly to have an impact. One in a thousand trains is still 0.1% on PPM. As with most things there's a balance between cost and coverage. For instance TfL wanted very low cancellations on London Overground. The solution has been the introduction of cover turns for drivers. That costs millions a year; just to stop one reason for cancellations, and not the biggest either (infrastructure and train failures are much bigger causes).

With ASLEF already committing to no more DOO then I think this problem has more or less solved itself.

Ah, the ASLEF Charter. Non-drivers might be interested in taking a look. How many millions would that shopping list cost I wonder? What would it add to the price of a ticket?

If I paid £150 a month for my season ticket, I'd want the same level of staffing on my train, if not more.

£150? You'd be lucky. Shows how insulated drivers are from the real world, if the ASLEF charter hadn't done that already. I think if you were paying £500 a month the biggest single thing you'd be worried about would be the price of your ticket.

FGW say that the train will DOO during disruption and there isn't a guard which is backwards.

I agree that a second person on the train in times of disruption is invaluable. Does he have to be a guard?

I await the response from the 'what's better, a train with no guard or a rail replacement bus'. My response is similar to what I wrote before, properly staff depots, have cover traincrew and create contingency plans that actually work and it's unlikely this question needs to be asked in the first place.

Straw man.

 

[bnm]

It was very good to see that FGW were able to run more trains than planned yesterday as more staff than expected turned up for work. It shows that support for the action is far from rock solid. 10% more RMT members showed up for their shifts than expected. 60% of the usual weekday service ran. And with many services strengthened as rolling stock was spare there were no reports of dangerous overcrowding or people left behind.

Today FGW have added more additional services to the emergency timetable.

The **** (self censored word now deemed inappropriate) have, it seems, been unable to hold the company or its customers to ransom. Good.

 

[gareth950]

FGW have published via twitter exactly what their commitments are to the RMT:
https://twitter.com/FGW/status/619208373557403649

OUR COMMITMENTS

The introduction of new Super Express Trains between Paddington and Newbury, Oxford, Bristol and South Wales are at the centre of our plans to deliver the biggest fleet update on our network in a generation. They will help create three million more seats per year and provide faster, more frequent journeys across this key route.

But in order to make these improvements we need to operate these trains differently to how we operate our current 40 year-old High Speed Trains. The safest, most efficient way to do this is by the driver operating the doors, which has been done safely across the UK rail network for 30 years.

We completely understand some of our colleagues may be worried about the impact these trains might have on their job security. We have made a number of commitments, and even expanded some in recent days, to address concerns raised by the RMT.

The commitments we have made so far are:

• The jobs of people who work on board these trains are safe, we have no intention of removing train managers or customer hosts from trains. We have also promised that they will retain their current terms and conditions • Help for colleagues if they decide they don’t want to work on new trains

• We will ensure that each SET service has a Guard with full training and competency in PTS, door operation, route knowledge and operational rules

• We will only ever run a Super Express Train without a Train Manager when the only other alternative would be to cancel it. Even then, we do not propose extending this past areas where current staff agreements permit. An SET would not be operated without a safety competent Guard on board beyond Oxford, Banbury, Didcot Parkway or Bedwyn

• A fully competent, safety-critical Train Manager diagrammed on all SETs (The Driver would control doors, but the Train Manager would be competent to do so in the event of equipment failure)

• Turbos cascaded to the West will be operated with a fully competent Guard at all times, on top of our commitment for a fully competent guard on board SETs

• Despite the changes to train maintenance from the introduction of SETs being out of our control, we will work with the relevant trades unions to protect affected colleagues in Engineering depots as much as possible, including offering a voluntary redundancy scheme.

The one area where we cannot meet RMT concerns lies with buffet cars on SETs. The new SETs have already been ordered from Hitachi by the Department for Transport and are already being built in the UK – we are not in the same position as East Coast, whose trains are 18 months behind ours on the production line.

However, even if we could, the results of in-service trials carried out last year were very clear that 90 per cent of people would prefer not to have to leave their seat and belongings to go to a buffet car. Adding a buffet to a train – on top of the kitchen already on board – would require a considerable number of seats to be removed from every train.

 

[BestWestern]

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.

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.

Acceleration and power doors. A Voyager has doors which are closed only when the Guard authorises it. So there you are, a fine example of how we can still improve matters AND retain a proper Guard on board.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

FGW have published via twitter exactly what their commitments are to the RMT:
https://twitter.com/FGW/status/619208373557403649

This conveniently doesn't mention the significantly reduced responsibilities of the proposed 'Safety Competent Guard.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It was very good to see that FGW were able to run more trains than planned yesterday as more staff than expected turned up for work. It shows that support for the action is far from rock solid. 10% more RMT members showed up for their shifts than expected. 60% of the usual weekday service ran. And with many services strengthened as rolling stock was spare there were no reports of dangerous overcrowding or people left behind.

Today FGW have added more additional services to the emergency timetable.

The belligerents have, it seems, been unable to hold the company or its customers to ransom. Good.

Many of those extra staff were in roles largely unaffected, such as ticket office and gateline. Their lack of solidarity has of course been noted, but it has done nothing to dent the resolve of the majority who are standing strong - there are very few Guards working trains. Rather sad you feel unable to summon any empathy for those who are merely fighting to defend their jobs. Pleasingly however, there has so far been rather widespread support from the public. Take the press relelase figures with a pinch of salt; they're part of a battle plan after all.