W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[HH]

I can think of ways of saving money without cutting front line, safety critical staff that actually deal with the public. Start having a look at a few middle managers at TOCs, what their roles are and what they actually do productivity wise.

I absolutely agree that some TOCs have too much middle management and that FGW is one of them (and will probably remain so as long as First have the franchise). However, this is not an either/or situation; there's nothing stopping them doing both.

 

[yorkie]

No job can be guaranteed for beyond 4 years.

FGW will be employing more staff (who will have to be proactive and can't hide), not less.

 

[HH]

Not really. Let me clarify it for you. FGW are intent on implimenting plans now which will pave the way to more serious issues when the next Great Western franchise begins, in a few years' time. There is a widespread belief, and quite a valid one, that First feel if they can report back to the DfT that they have managed to get McNulty through, they will be looked upon rather favourably come franchise award time. None of the promises made about job security give any assurances whatsoever about the next franchise. The issue, quite simply, is that if First carry out their plans now, the door is very firmly open for the next franchisee, whoever that may be, to cause real problems with the current Guard role and all of those in that job. If those proposals are stopped now, that door is not open. Staff are carrying out industrial action to halt what is very likely to be the beginning of the end of their jobs. Those outside observers who seem genuinely unable to fathom what the problem is, would do well to realise that there is a bigger picture here. The RMT can see it, and the workers can see it. Four years is not long. Protecting jobs now will protect jobs in the long term. It really is quite simple.

Which is precisely what I said. The strike is about what could happen in the next Franchise. I actually agree that it's too late to wait until then to strike.

 

[Flamingo]

No job can be guaranteed for beyond 4 years.

FGW will be employing more staff (who will have to be proactive and can't hide), not less.

At this stage, your constant posts about staff hiding are gone beyond tiresome. If you think a particular service or TOC have a problem with this, complain to them. The majority of guards do not hide - but on an eight carriage train, with their other duties, they may not be available to sit beside you for the whole journey. This will NOT change on IEP's, if anything, it could become worse as a lot of my walking through the train is getting too and from whatever door I need to open and close from at the next stop.

 

[BestWestern]

Which is precisely what I said. The strike is about what could happen in the next Franchise. I actually agree that it's too late to wait until then to strike.

No. The strike is about (unnecessary) changes being made in THIS franchise, which in turn will lay the ground for further issues in the next. The changes are being instigated now, by FGW, in the likely hope that they will win the next franchise and then be able to follow through with far worse. The strike is about issues which start right here and now, and about the short term assurances being given not disguising the likely reality of what would lay further down the road.

 

[yorkie]

It's not a particular TOC, though it's more an issue with some than others, but on evening trains I get it seems more often than not there there isn't anyone walking through the trains. With the Strathclyde model there would be. I don't see it as grounds for complaint as there is no requirement for staff to be patrolling the train (it's merely desirable but not compulsory).

As for things being tiresome, I don't think it's fair to say one set of views is tiresome while another is not, as the whole debate going round in circles is tiresome! If certain claims (e.g claims of trains becoming less secure/less patrols of trains by staff when the opposite will generally be the case) were not being made I'd see no need to make counter-claims.

 

[BestWestern]

No job can be guaranteed for beyond 4 years.

FGW will be employing more staff (who will have to be proactive and can't hide), not less.

'Employing more staff' is utterly meaningless to those who are already employed and concerned about the future of their specific role.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not a particular TOC, though it's more an issue with some than others, but on evening trains I get it seems more often than not there there isn't anyone walking through the trains. With the Strathclyde model there would be.

As for things being tiresome, I don't think it's fair to say one set of views is tiresome while another is not, as the whole debate going round in circles is tiresome! If certain claims (e.g claims of trains becoming less secure/less patrols of trains by staff when the opposite will generally be the case) were not being made I'd see no need to make counter-claims.

Do you travel often on late evening SPT trains? Is there actually any evidence to suggest that a lone Ticket Examiner, on a modest wage and with no responsibility whatsoever for the train they are working on, is actually any more likely to be walking up and down constantly demanding to see tickets?! We keep hearing that if all Guards were scrapped and instead we had an army of ATEs, everything would be wonderful. Every ticket would be checked, every passenger would be safer, etc etc. I would take an educated guess that, actually, on a late evening train whistling through the murky urban sprawl of Glasgow, demanding tickets from battle hardened punters probably happens rather less than our DOO Warriers might like to think. It's called personal safety, and it's endorsed by every single TOC in the land. As a Guard, I have any number of reasons to patrol my train - and it is a stated part of my role. If you are a Ticket Examiner, it isn't.

 

[68000]

Do you travel often on late evening SPT trains? Is there actually any evidence to suggest that a lone Ticket Examiner, on a modest wage and with no responsibility whatsoever for the train they are working on, is actually any more likely to be walking up and down constantly demanding to see tickets?!

I do and have loads of times and the TE's do walk up and down the train

I would take an educated guess that, actually, on a late evening train whistling through the murky urban sprawl of Glasgow, demanding tickets from battle hardened punters probably happens rather less than our DOO Warriers might like to think.

Maybe you should travel up and experience the battle hardened urban trains and the ticket examiners doing their job

 

[387star]

Those people who say the guard should not be in the back cab

Where should they be then?

If they have completed revenue and security checks do you expect them to stand by the narrow doors of a 158 getting in the way of people?

Also guards route learn from the back cab

 

[cactustwirly]

Also guards route learn from the back cab

Why do guards need to route learn?

 

[387star]

Why do guards need to route learn?

We need to know the names of lines including whether they are up or down tunnels junctions level crossings including their type controlling signaller and eco if applicable whether it is axle counters or track circuit detection ..... All the stations not just those we stop at . We also need to be aware of line speed changes


We need to route learn and remain competent on that route or we lose the route from our portfolio and are deemed no longer competent

We need to route learn in case of emergency so we can clearly state our location and understand the hazards of the area when carrying out evacuations or emergency train protection

For instance if a fire was on board you would use your route knowledge to decide when best to stop the train so not in a tunnel or viaduct !

 

[HH]

Do you travel often on late evening SPT trains? Is there actually any evidence to suggest that a lone Ticket Examiner, on a modest wage and with no responsibility whatsoever for the train they are working on, is actually any more likely to be walking up and down constantly demanding to see tickets?!

I have travelled a fair bit on ScotRail services (I can't speak so much for SPT services) in the Strathclyde area and my overall impression was that the ScotRail ATEs are the best ticket checkers of all the TOCs I've travelled on, even late in the evening. Of course there are always exceptions, but most people would feel safer on a ScotRail evening train than they would on an SWT Inner, despite the fact that both have a second person on board, and despite the ScotRail one not being safety critical.

 

[FordFocus]

No job can be guaranteed for beyond 4 years.

FGW will be employing more staff (who will have to be proactive and can't hide), not less.

"Can't hide"

I agree with BestWestern, it's getting very tiresome of this continuously getting posted by yourself and others yorkie.

If a Train Manager job title changes over night to Ticket Examiner, what stops them from "hiding"? Operation of doors isn't hiding, it's carrying out your duties, many times I've been in the back cab to either ring control or fix my ticket machine and that's not hiding.

Once Virgin TMs have finished their ticket duties a lot of them go back to their office, is that hiding? Passengers can find them as they are next to other customer service staff in the 'shop' and it's also marked on their onboard train map posters.

On my DOO trains I have RPIs in the back cab not doing tickets for whatever reason, is that "hiding" and shall we make them redundant?

The more this goes on, the more this DCO argument falls apart from the pro-DCO, pro-DOO camp.

 

[hello]

Those people who say the guard should not be in the back cab

Where should they be then?

If they have completed revenue and security checks do you expect them to stand by the narrow doors of a 158 getting in the way of people?

Also guards route learn from the back cab

ask southern guards what they do. they are not permitted to travel in the back cab unless they are at risk

 

[tsr]

ask southern guards what they do. they are not permitted to travel in the back cab unless they are at risk

Incorrect! The back cab can also be used to call the driver if the communication is potentially worrying for the public to hear (eg. to confirm about passing a signal at danger, which could cause undue alarm for the uninitiated), for dealing with equipment issues if an area in the saloon is not suitable, for dispatch when a view from a droplight is needed or if passenger areas are extremely busy... You name it, really! So long as the train is patrolled when space exists, and the dispatch procedure is from the saloon where safe and practical, the back cab can be periodically visited. Hiding there for the sake of it, however, is deeply discouraged.

 

[notadriver]

So are the anti-train guard posters saying that the IEP trains shouldn't have a dedicated train managers office? As for back cab bans, how could that seriously be enforced ? Answer - it can't. These days conductors do a far better job than they ever have thanks to regular audits taking place even at weekends.

As a driver a Ticket Examiner is of little help to me. They only check tickets. A train manager or guard is responsible for the safe running of the train and can assist me when necessary.

 

[LowLevel]

I presume they wander around a generally fairly long and spacious train. On my Sprinters between bashing people in the head with my Avantix with the narrow aisles, dodging the trolley and people trying to get to the toilet or hanging around in greenhouse like vestibules with no heaters for winter or air con for summer being permanently in the train would be a hindrance more than a help. I do spend more time in the train than the back cab though as I patrol/do tickets religiously. I'm not going to wander aimlessly up and down 100 metres of train constantly and on a 6 hour rounder with 20 minutes to change ends, help with turnaround duties and theoretically have a break while working on a unit with no welfare facilities except a toilet you can bet your life I will spend 10 or 15 minutes here or there sat in the back having a drink. If the job goes tits up I won't even get that.

Believe it or not if I need to count some money, log a fault or make some calls I'll be there as well. I'm a person in charge of a train with hundreds of people on working over 100 miles from my depot and managers and paid over 25 grand a year to hold a position of responsibility - I don't need a Muppet telling me when I should or shouldn't be in certain parts of my train (note - my train. As in the one I'm in charge of, not my line manager or even a director). Luckily my employer seems happy with how we work and we don't have such stupid rules.

 

[Flamingo]

I presume they wander around a generally fairly long and spacious train. On my Sprinters between bashing people in the head with my Avantix with the narrow aisles, dodging the trolley and people trying to get to the toilet or hanging around in greenhouse like vestibules with no heaters for winter or air con for summer being permanently in the train would be a hindrance more than a help. I do spend more time in the train than the back cab though as I patrol/do tickets religiously. I'm not going to wander aimlessly up and down 100 metres of train constantly and on a 6 hour rounder with 20 minutes to change ends, help with turnaround duties and theoretically have a break while working on a unit with no welfare facilities except a toilet you can bet your life I will spend 10 or 15 minutes here or there sat in the back having a drink. If the job goes tits up I won't even get that.

Believe it or not if I need to count some money, log a fault or make some calls I'll be there as well. I'm a person in charge of a train with hundreds of people on working over 100 miles from my depot and managers and paid over 25 grand a year to hold a position of responsibility - I don't need a Muppet telling me when I should or shouldn't be in certain parts of my train (note - my train. As in the one I'm in charge of, not my line manager or even a director). Luckily my employer seems happy with how we work and we don't have such stupid rules.

Wot he said ^^^^^

 

[SWTH]

I'm also at a loss to explain why there are people here so keen to see the end of guards. Do you honestly all wish to see people out of a job?

Consider this: revenue is the very bottom of the priority list for a guard. That doesn't mean avoiding it, but there are a whole load of other tasks/reasons (several outlined by LowLevel) that may mean the guard is otherwise engaged. I do my best in terms of revenue duties, but what should I do when my Avantix fails (which happens all too often) or when on a late night train I have to try and contain a herd of drunks (better to ensure they don't damage anything or start being a pain to other passengers than try doing revenue in another part of the train)?

One final point: Ufton Nervet, 2004. Driver Stan Martin was killed in the accident. The guard had to take charge and co-ordinate passengers, emergency response and protect the train. There were no infrastructure issues, no mechanical issues with the HST involved. The accident was caused by a car parked on the level crossing as part of a suicide attempt.

There is nothing to stop a similar accident happening today, 11 years on. Indeed, there have been several near misses, including a HST that ended up with a tree in the cab (had the driver not hit the deck so quickly it would have probably decapitated him).

Would you like to be on the next train in that situation, but without a safety-critical member of traincrew present? Someone with the training and ability to lead and guide passengers to safety? You might think you're perfectly capable of making your own way to safety, and that may or may not be true. Among the other two, three or four hundred passengers on board a significant number will not be able to.

So, do you still think not having a guard is a good idea?

 

[HowardGWR]

The notion of having a guard for a once in a Preston Guild occurrence is simply not very well thought out. If we were to take the same attitude to safety measures as you have just laid out, no ordinary amateur (member of the public) car driver would ever be allowed behind the wheel of a car. These people cause damage of huge proportions, incomparable with the odd train collision, and they do it every day of the week.

I plead for a sense of proportion in these discussions.

 

[HH]

I think you guys haven't grasped it yet. Safety comes at a cost. The powers that be have determined that the additional safety afforded by a guard is not good VfM. They'd rather you were collecting revenue than worrying your pretty little heads about safety issues.

It's them that you have to convince, not anyone here. RMT are just playing to the gallery, a bit like the Greek government.

 

[plastictaffy]

LowLevel - You've hit the nail exactly on the head there, dude/dudette.

Your train?? Exactly.

I had an issue the other day with a train that was being expressed due to late running from my home depot. Driver buzzes me up, "I dunno how you wanna do this, but there's no PIS code for this stopping pattern, so you'll have to make manual announcements as I've disabled the system"

Me: " NO worries, I'll deal with the inside of the train and the punters, you just stay awake and keep us pointed in the right direction"

Driver: "um, yeah, I'll do that, thanks mate"

He told me when we terminated in London that he'd had an issue with a Call for Aid in one of the toilets, and the Guard had had to be asked twice and then TOLD to reset it, then had to ask him how to reset it. After that, he said, he thought he better check that I was on the case!!!

There are plenty of occassions where a Guard is needed - that's a Guard, not a rent-a-cop with a PTS certificate. I was terminated short today, and required turning back at a major junction on a very main line. To perform the turnback, the driver needs to ensure that the rear is clear of the dummy that will be pulled off once the bobby has moved the points. Because I was there, and I "dinged" him once he was clear of the dummy and the AWS magnet, he knew damn well he was clear and would be able to do as instructed. Without me, he'd be guessing where he is, and possibly end up holding up the Slow Lines of the WCML while he changes ends again to move clear of the magnet he thought he was clear of.

These kind of things happen every day - every single day, one of us is needed to do something out of course. You want to come out of Euston on the 0034 on a friday night, 12 car, full of football fans?? No guard, and an out of course stop in the middle of nowhere to for the driver to reset a CFA or similar - no Guard letting you know why you've made this stop in the arse end of nowhere??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
HH - if it was up to you, we'd already have had out PTS cards taken off us, and we'd be glorified ticket inspectors, right?? Problem with that being that my TOC, along with many others don't actually care about revenue to the point of employing people to collect it!!!!

 

[SWTH]

I note the question I posed at the beginning of my previous post has been ignored by both of you. (HowardGWR & HH)

HH, the day you (along with others on this forum) grasp the fact that revenue IS NOT A PRIORITY for a guard it will be a blessed relief for all of us on the forum. And by the way, stop it with the patronising tone of your posts. It does you no favours at all.

Safety is the priority. Always has been, always should be. The car analogy doesn't work because the chances of a car driver causing a major incident is actually quite small (Great Heck being the obvious exception). When a train is involved in an incident, there is a much bigger chance of it affecting several hundred people directly, whereas most car crashes involve a handful of people. FGW themselves reiterate through their literature and training "If it isn't safe, don't do it". We are even issued with books to record potential hazards in.

The proposals seem to completely blow all of that out of the water. Make no mistake, despite the revenue argument being trotted out time and again, the issue we all have with it is safety, for reasons outlined in detail by several EXPERIENCED members of safety-critical traincrew. If you cannot understand that people who know what they are talking about find the proposals to run a HSS train with less safeguards in place than is currently acceptable alarming, then perhaps it explains why you fail to understand the flaws in your argument.

 

[LowLevel]

I think you guys haven't grasped it yet. Safety comes at a cost. The powers that be have determined that the additional safety afforded by a guard is not good VfM. They'd rather you were collecting revenue than worrying your pretty little heads about safety issues.

It's them that you have to convince, not anyone here. RMT are just playing to the gallery, a bit like the Greek government.

We already have grasped it and disagree profoundly. Guards have been in place for very valid reasons for a long time and given other TOCs with qualified and experienced safety management teams take our view it is entirely correct that the motives of the authorities be questioned and put under the spotlight.

Personally if I'm playing entirely candid I could honestly do in every single one of those in the corridors of power that are behind this issue. There isn't a day go by that I don't have to think about this issue and it's possible effect on my future. I love my job and while I'm confident enough that I'd have a pretty good crack at going driving if I had to I don't want to be forced. I have no interest in being a customer service numpty who is basically a passenger collecting tickets sub servient to a driver locked in a cab. I like the challenge of my role and given I'm a high performing guard who had to jump through hoops and psychometric testing to get my role I think it's entirely appropriate to feel aggrieved. It's what I've always wanted to do and some bean counter could rip it away forever. I have no intention of going down quietly because I do the job and I know the inherent background value of it.

My pretty little head is currently advising you to get knotted,.you arrogant fool. Don't assume that we are children and we don't understand the game.

I mean come on - the safety regulator has produced a guide to bringing in DOO despite safety concerns for commercial reasons. What other evidence of foul play do you need - they should be totally impartial on commercial elements of safety issues.

 

[plastictaffy]

We need to get admin to put in like button!!

HH - safety does come at a price, you're quite correct. At my place it's currently approximately 30k per year, per man. Is that too high a price to ensure everyon'e safety??

I make the price, per head to ensure passenger safety as not very much. 30k a year. 1 12 car train per day. 1500 people per train. 180(ish) days a year worked. If I worked just one 12 car train every day on my salary, for 180 days a year, the price of safety comes in at slightly more than a penny per passenger. Or, to put it another way, about a penny or so of your ticket price (assuming you do buy tickets) goes to ensure your safety while you are on my train. Doesn't sound so bad when you put it like that, does it??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another way of putting it is thus. If a penny of your ticket money goes to me in wage, and (assuming double the wage, which it isn't, but for the purposes of this discussion, we'll assume it is) 2 pence goes to the drivers' wage (again, assuming him and I only work one 12 car train for the rest of our carreers) then the shareholders are doing very well out of your ticket price, aren't they?? Surely another argument for re-nationalisation??

 

[skyhigh]

I'm also at a loss to explain why there are people here so keen to see the end of guards. Do you honestly all wish to see people out of a job?

I can understand why people feel that way, not that I agree with it. On Monday I took a FGW train from Paddington to Penzance. I hardly saw the guard and didn't get my tickets checked once. If people don't see what the guard is doing when they travel, I can understand why they're not that interested in keeping them.

Having said that, the train was fairly packed and obviously the guard had more important things to do than look after revenue. As has been mentioned, safety is obviously much higher up the list of priorities. I think guards are vital for safety - they're not glorified ticket inspectors.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

We already have grasped it and disagree profoundly. Guards have been in place for very valid reasons for a long time and given other TOCs with qualified and experienced safety management teams take our view it is entirely correct that the motives of the authorities be questioned and put under the spotlight.

Personally if I'm playing entirely candid I could honestly do in every single one of those in the corridors of power that are behind this issue. There isn't a day go by that I don't have to think about this issue and it's possible effect on my future. I love my job and while I'm confident enough that I'd have a pretty good crack at going driving if I had to I don't want to be forced. I have no interest in being a customer service numpty who is basically a passenger collecting tickets sub servient to a driver locked in a cab. I like the challenge of my role and given I'm a high performing guard who had to jump through hoops and psychometric testing to get my role I think it's entirely appropriate to feel aggrieved. It's what I've always wanted to do and some bean counter could rip it away forever. I have no intention of going down quietly because I do the job and I know the inherent background value of it.

My pretty little head is currently advising you to get knotted,.you arrogant fool. Don't assume that we are children and we don't understand the game.

I mean come on - the safety regulator has produced a guide to bringing in DOO despite safety concerns for commercial reasons. What other evidence of foul play do you need - they should be totally impartial on commercial elements of safety issues.

^^^^This^^^^ Spot on my friend

 

[craigybagel]

^^^^This^^^^ Spot on my friend

Take another "Like" from this guard as well Low Level, that was excellently put.

 

[timbo58]

Spot on low level.

 

[Busaholic]

I have not seen anyone argue that on-train presence of what I earlier in this thread called a 'senior steward' (train manager if you like) is other than necessary, mandatory, IMO, on longer distance trains. At night, one sometimes needs the equivalent of bouncers, as well, due to the unfortunate element of the travelling public that requires this supervision.

All that has nothing to do with safe arrival and dispatch of trains by modern methods.

Thank you; my position entirely.