W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[Aictos]

Do FGW have a trolley service at the moment go though Standard Class as I've never encountered one, indeed the only catering provided seems to be a buffet which is good although I don't know why they can't do what VTEC do and provide both a buffet and trolley.

 

[Flamingo]

Do FGW have a trolley service at the moment go though Standard Class as I've never encountered one, indeed the only catering provided seems to be a buffet which is good although I don't know why they can't do what VTEC do and provide both a buffet and trolley.

Not on HST's. It's been tried in the past, most recently about four or five years ago. It didn't work, and was replaced with the mini-buffets. Apparently there is something also being tried in a few months, but I'm not sure on the details.

 

[Dave1987]

At the end of the day this is a point of principle. Aslef & the RMT have both rightly said there should be no extension of DOO services end of. Arguably there are many lines which are DOO now where a serious accident is going to happen sooner or later. We live in a world where the general public seem to be becoming more and more stupid at times. Common sense does not exist any longer. The biggest risk where the railway has less control is the "train - platform interface", and as such dispatch is an extremely high risk area. We should not be doing anything to degrade the safety in this area. But it would seem performance and costs are more important than safety now.

 

[LateThanNever]

We are going round and round in circles, they would not be Guards as the trains will be Driver Only Operation (DOO). DOO means exactly that; driver only operation so a Guard is not necessary and they could run with just a driver. This method of operation can be seen on Scotrail Strathclyde electrics (which do not have Guards but have highly visible staff patrolling the trains doing customer service stuff but who do not get involved in the operation of the train). In practice, as you say there will be more staff, but the existing staff are wanting to be on the same conditions and don't want the trains to be able to run without them. This has all been discussed at length many times (and not just in this thread). We will continue to go round and round in circles and will never reach consensus on this matter. Some people like the Strathclyde model, some don't.

Agreed, except that the Strathclyde model is hardly London -Swansea/Penzance or even London - Reading, given the passenger numbers, which are considerably more in the area where the Driver Only system seems to be optional.

As I've suggested before, the unions are their own worst enemies. The training needs to be made intensive so qualification is not so prolonged and the guard needs to be reinstated on all trains - with extra specific responsibilty for revenue collection/protection.
The railway management is poor. I think the unions need to tell the management how to run the railway (pace Mrs Thatcher!) and offer maximum flexibilty in return for certainty.
Think out of the box as they say, and perhaps the 'Guard's Union' (not the RMT) should have the task of ensuring there is a suitably qualified guard on every train. How could they arrange that within the current system? Maybe that union could be company subcontractors? If that were successful then every operating company would be queuing up to hire the 'Guard's Union' to operate their trains. They'd be sought after specialists!

 

[Carlisle]

At the end of the day this is a point of principle. Aslef & the RMT have both rightly said there should be no extension of DOO services end of.

Fine ,as long as your quite happy to be denied all sorts of shops and services you may require, when you want them, as their workers issue what they also consider equally principled demands through their unions ,end of (phew, did we learn anything from the 1970s)

 

[yorkie]

Fine ,as long as your quite happy to be denied shops and services you may require, when you want them when their workers issue what they also consider equally principled demands through their unions ,end of

He won't mind as he can go to another shop. Shop workers - like the majority of workers - can't realistically strike anyway, so the comparison doesn't really work.

If DOO is brought in they also won't be able to make any material difference with a strike in future (as the trains would still run), so they will want this strike to have an effect because if they fail they won't get another chance. At the end of the day people will look after their own interests and want to protect their own pay and conditions and you can't really blame them for wanting to doing so.

 

[Carlisle]

At the end of the day people will look after their own interests and want to protect their own pay and conditions and you can't really blame them for wanting to doing so.

Agreed

 

[455driver]

At the end of the day people will look after their own interests and want to protect their own pay and conditions and you can't really blame them for wanting to doing so.

So this isn't about people wanting the railways to be as safe as possible but about workers wanting to protect their pay in the face of 'modernisation'!

Thanks for your support.

 

[timbo58]

It's an awful lot deeper than just losing any bargaining power at some unspecified future date and doubt that is even being considered by most guards voting each time, although I can agree this might be one minor consideration.

If trains can be run DOO it means there is no requirement at all for spare guards on the roster - this inevitably means job losses and loss of any overtime working.

it means that effectively the company can alter rosters work to suit their own requirements by getting the train manager to act as a travelling customer ambassador/ ticket examiner- hopping on & off as the roster demands or at controls 'whim' based on revenue protection projections.

Also, unlike presently, it WILL be possible to train staff to replace 'guards' in a week or so since there will be no requirement or need for any route knowledge, operational training or PTS certificate, a far cry from the 6 months it takes now, this opens up the role to agency work for seasonal demands or for when you have trouble filling these positions conventionally.

The press & travelling public are being told that these 'guards' jobs aren't changing but that simply isn't true, it might be a present guards job would change very slowly, starting with less overtime, then guards leaving not replaced, then work patterns being ' more flexible', but 'not changing tomorrow' might be considered more truthful as jobs sure as hell will change if these jobs changes are accepted.

I think the promises of more staff on trains needs clarifying too - I suspect this is 'nacht und nebel' frankly* - I can see this meaning an occasional ticket examiner hopping on & off and 2 trolley staff - after all 3 staff in future is better than 2 now isn't it?

Fgw are big on promises that sound good superficially but are completely unspecific and probably mean nothing when closely examined.

Maybe some of this/ most of this is my opinion, but that is based on 15 years experience of Working as a guard on GW both before & after FG, and *until FG are as open & honest (as Hopwood says they are) and come out with the specifics of what 'circumstances for DOO working' actually mean ( not just no guard available - what a load of crap - you could sack all guards tomorrow and thus have no guard available) then I believe the union are correct and everyone else has the right to view FG's honesty as subject to a great deal of cynicism.

I currently regard promises made by Hopwood etc as 'night & fog' or 'smoke and mirrors' cynically designed to superficially persuade those 'not in the know' to think FG are acting honourably and I am frankly disappointed the RMT are not getting this message across.

No one wants to have the benefit of saying ' I told you so' in 5/10/15 years time.

 

[Flamingo]

It's an awful lot deeper than just losing any bargaining power at some unspecified future date and doubt that is even being considered by most guards voting each time, although I can agree this might be one minor consideration.

If trains can be run DOO it means there is no requirement at all for spare guards on the roster - this inevitably means job losses and loss of any overtime working.

it means that effectively the company can alter rosters work to suit their own requirements by getting the train manager to act as a travelling customer ambassador/ ticket examiner- hopping on & off as the roster demands or at controls 'whim' based on revenue protection projections.

Also, unlike presently, it WILL be possible to train staff to replace 'guards' in a week or so since there will be no requirement or need for any route knowledge, operational training or PTS certificate, a far cry from the 6 months it takes now, this opens up the role to agency work for seasonal demands or for when you have trouble filling these positions conventionally.

The press & travelling public are being told that these 'guards' jobs aren't changing but that simply isn't true, it might be a present guards job would change very slowly, starting with less overtime, then guards leaving not replaced, then work patterns being ' more flexible', but 'not changing tomorrow' might be considered more truthful as jobs sure as hell will change if these jobs changes are accepted.

I think the promises of more staff on trains needs clarifying too - I suspect this is 'nacht und nebel' frankly* - I can see this meaning an occasional ticket examiner hopping on & off and 2 trolley staff - after all 3 staff in future is better than 2 now isn't it?

Fgw are big on promises that sound good superficially but are completely unspecific and probably mean nothing when closely examined.

Maybe some of this/ most of this is my opinion, but that is based on 15 years experience of Working as a guard on GW both before & after FG, and *until FG are as open & honest (as Hopwood says they are) and come out with the specifics of what 'circumstances for DOO working' actually mean ( not just no guard available - what a load of crap - you could sack all guards tomorrow and thus have no guard available) then I believe the union are correct and everyone else has the right to view FG's honesty as subject to a great deal of cynicism.

I currently regard promises made by Hopwood etc as 'night & fog' or 'smoke and mirrors' cynically designed to superficially persuade those 'not in the know' to think FG are acting honourably and I am frankly disappointed the RMT are not getting this message across.

No one wants to have the benefit of saying ' I told you so' in 5/10/15 years time.

That seems a good summary...

 

[timbo58]

Thanks Flamingo.

I think it's useful to hear other opinions and I am frustrated by the fact we can't hear some honest feedback from management ( although I'd accept that they should be doing it with their staff 1st & foremost).

I have been in senior management positions both on the railway and since leaving also so I fully accept that all jobs in a company have to be costed and revised whether they are 100% necessary and if they can be utilised to provide a better return, but too many jobs have been treated in quite a cavalier and cynical manner IMHO since privatisation.

You can't look at every thing everywhere as purely 'where's the profit'? I was always told that catering on train should be regarded as 'customer care and providing part of the service', that now seems to have been forgotten and cast aside and to hell with anyone who doesn't like this as they are all looking at it with rose tinted spectacles.

It's my belief that when the private companies started to look at British rail they thought it would be the same as all other nationalised businesses - over staffed- so saw it was an easy way to make profits immediately - and were disappointed since intercity, for example, were very much understaffed since BR had cut back massively in its last few years.

Since FG took over GWT the way they've gradually taken away parts of the dogs bone in regards to catering have been a lesson in the studied approach to removing customer benefits without causing too much of a fuss -
Restaurant - gradually removing these from all but the busiest services
When possible replacing with travelling chefs
Then removing travelling chefs
Standard trolleys - removal because the 'buffet is better able to cater for passengers' and the fact they were rolling out 1st dedicated trolleys, then gradually as new sets came in they got rid of the full buffet, so what will happen to catering?

Your guess is as good as mine but I would think probably some sort of mobile hopping or off trolley service for the parts of the journey busy enough to justify it but not too busy so it can't operate, perhaps they could use agency staff with no sick pay, no holiday pay, seasonal use only and - (remember 'cherry tree catering' anyone?) you could even not pay them when they were not actually on the train waiting at stations as per their roster! ( tee hee! That's progress for you).

 

[jimm]

Not that train catering has much to do with DOO but...

Since FG took over GWT the way they've gradually taken away parts of the dogs bone in regards to catering have been a lesson in the studied approach to removing customer benefits without causing too much of a fuss -
Restaurant - gradually removing these from all but the busiest services
When possible replacing with travelling chefs
Then removing travelling chefs
Standard trolleys - removal because the 'buffet is better able to cater for passengers' and the fact they were rolling out 1st dedicated trolleys, then gradually as new sets came in they got rid of the full buffet, so what will happen to catering?

Are you somehow implying this is any different to what other TOCs have done with catering - the RMT has somehow managed to reconcile itself to trolleys on XC, in case you hadn't noticed - and that BR itself might very well have done if it was still with us, given that it cut back pretty drastically on catering itself over the years. I can just about remember eating a silver service restaurant car lunch travelling Edinburgh-York on a Sunday in 1976 - try doing that today. And for some reason Serco doesn't seem to be rushing to reinstate the long-vanished restaurant car on the West Highland sleeper as part of its customer care policy.

FGW has actually held the line on catering rather longer than others by trying things like travelling chef and abandoning its first plan for trolleys on HSTs and even, in recent months, reinstating some Pullman restaurants. But unless they are telling some very big fibs, then it appears the economics are still against them - which plenty of evidence from BR days suggests was the case back then.

Never mind the often quite drastic cuts the railways have delivered in journey times over the past four decades, meaning people are just a tad less likely to want to buy food or drink on board, or the explosion in the number of food outlets at stations where many people are quite obviously buying before they board.

Nothing rose-tinted about any of that, just things changing.

There is also DfT's quite clearly dogged insistence that the GW batch of IEPs were 'their' trains and they weren't going to give FGW any chance to change the interiors, whereas it appears that on the AT300 variant, to First Group's spec, there will be buffets if the order proceeds - if that's what the 'some buffets' line in the press release means - and Virgin/Stagecoach are on the record as follows about their batch, presumably after a frank exchange of views during franchise negotiations - and ministers no doubt not wishing to upset a certain bearded businessman. Not that it stopped the RMT staging a protest at Kings Cross last December claiming the buffets would be axed.

A spokeswoman for Stagecoach-Virgin, whose joint venture Inter City Railways will run the East Coast franchise from 2015, said: “The RMT’s planned protest is bizarre. We confirmed some time ago that it is our clear intention to have a buffet car on the new trains.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...ect-bizarre-buffet-car-axe-protests-1-7004232

Arguably there are many lines which are DOO now where a serious accident is going to happen sooner or later.

And your basis for this claim is what? Never mind that it is pretty insulting to the drivers and dispatchers who work on these routes in the UK and abroad.

 

[Aictos]

We are going round and round in circles, they would not be Guards as the trains will be Driver Only Operation (DOO). DOO means exactly that; driver only operation so a Guard is not necessary and they could run with just a driver. This method of operation can be seen on Scotrail Strathclyde electrics (which do not have Guards but have highly visible staff patrolling the trains doing customer service stuff but who do not get involved in the operation of the train). In practice, as you say there will be more staff, but the existing staff are wanting to be on the same conditions and don't want the trains to be able to run without them. This has all been discussed at length many times (and not just in this thread). We will continue to go round and round in circles and will never reach consensus on this matter. Some people like the Strathclyde model, some don't.

That model might be acceptable on Outer Suburban/Metro NSE lines but on a InterCity operation no it's not acceptable.

 

[Carlisle]

the majority of workers - can't realistically strike anyway, so the comparison doesn't really work.

Not entirely true, for example remember how in the year 2000 fuel protests a combination of unions and campaign groups nearly brought many things to a standstill in a way very few of us thought was realistically possible until a few days before it actually happened

 

[Dave1987]

And your basis for this claim is what? Never mind that it is pretty insulting to the drivers and dispatchers who work on these routes in the UK and abroad.

Er my claim for that is I am a driver on a DOO route! Some places you depart from once you are past the mirror you have no idea what is going on behind you. But seeing as you are someone who believes that a driver should be watching the CCTV screens in their cab rather than the signals etc in front of them I wouldn't really expect you to understand that. Every driver I know would prefer to have a guard on the train.

 

[FordFocus]

The RMT protest at Kings Cross is silly. Virgin have ordered them with kitchens and buffets.

This caught my eye though

"A Department for Transport spokesman said fixed kitchens and trolley facilities were included in the base design of the trains. He added: “There is scope to introduce buffet facilities if the new franchisee wants to offer this facility to its passengers.”"

 

[jimm]

Er my claim for that is I am a driver on a DOO route! Some places you depart from once you are past the mirror you have no idea what is going on behind you. But seeing as you are someone who believes that a driver should be watching the CCTV screens in their cab rather than the signals etc in front of them I wouldn't really expect you to understand that. Every driver I know would prefer to have a guard on the train.

If you are aware of some tremendous safety flaw that means

a serious accident is going to happen sooner or later

then maybe you should be pointing this out to someone at the ORR who might be able to do something about it, rather than posting in vague, sweeping terms on a web forum. And as far as I'm aware, drivers on routes with in-cab signalling have to keep an eye on screens in their cabs, as well as what's out of the window. Or is that way of operating also another accident waiting to happen?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not entirely true, for example remember how in the year 2000 fuel protests a combination of unions and campaign groups nearly brought many things to a standstill in a way very few of us thought was realistically possible until a few days before it actually happened

The fuel protests were nothing to do with the trade unions. They were down to farmers and hauliers.

 

[ainsworth74]

The RMT protest at Kings Cross is silly. Virgin have ordered them with kitchens and buffets.

This caught my eye though

"A Department for Transport spokesman said fixed kitchens and trolley facilities were included in the base design of the trains. He added: “There is scope to introduce buffet facilities if the new franchisee wants to offer this facility to its passengers.”"

From the Train Technical Specification:

6.2.6 Catering

IEP Trains must be capable of providing a range of catering services. The catering solutions provided must be capable of providing catering services at four levels:

• Level 1 - Full restaurant service or at seat first class service with meals cooked on board;
• Level 2 - Servery that provides hot and cold snacks and drinks which may be delivered by either of the following methods:

o an at seat first class service together with the replenishment of trolleys for standard class service without the provision of a Café-Bar counter service; or
o the replenishment of trolleys and the provision of a Café-Bar counter service combined together;​

• Level 3 - Hot and cold snacks and drinks through a ‘Café-Bar’ style outlet; and
• Level 4 - A trolley service.

Plus:

Catering solutions must allow catering areas to be adapted to meet changing services and demand. To meet this requirement the following is required; a flexible arrangement for the accommodation of cooking equipment, power and water services, environment control, food preparation, refrigerated and ambient storage and waste handling.

There is also a handy table which lays out which combination of service levels have to be available to be selected by the operator (for example combination A requires the trains to provide levels 1, 2 and 4 (what VTEC appear to be getting) whilst combination C requires levels 1 and 4 to be provided (what the DfT want and FGW haven't bothered to try and get changed)).

The trains have been designed to be able to offer the full range of catering services that you can find on the network and to change the type of service that is wanted. This is why VTEC were able to get buffet on their trains, the train was designed to be able to include them if wanted!

A future operator on the GWML may decide they want buffets, equally a future operator on the ECML may decide they don't and the trains are specified to be able to meet those demands.

So the DfT are just saying what has always been the case since the train specification was made available to the public two or three years ago.

 

[Flamingo]

So all the talk that these trains can't take a buffet without a major redesign and rebuild is a bit exaggerated (to put it kindly)?

 

[ainsworth74]

So all the talk that these trains can't take a buffet without a major redesign and rebuild is a bit exaggerated (to put it kindly)?

That is my understanding. It would probably be a bit more involved than just dropping them off with Hitachi on Friday and collecting them again on Monday but the whole point of the design is that it should be possible for a new operator (or the existing one) to change the catering facilities provided without a massive amount of work, money or downtime.

Certainly anyone whose trying to suggest it would be impossible to change them once in service is talking out of their backside.

 

[Flamingo]

That is my understanding. It would probably be a bit more involved than just dropping them off with Hitachi on Friday and collecting them again on Monday but the whole point of the design is that it should be possible for a new operator (or the existing one) to change the catering facilities provided without a massive amount of work, monkey or downtime.

Certainly anyone whose trying to suggest it would be impossible to change them once in service is talking out of their backside.

Thank you. I might just quote you on that to said people...

 

[Dave1987]

If you are aware of some tremendous safety flaw that means



then maybe you should be pointing this out to someone at the ORR who might be able to do something about it, rather than posting in vague, sweeping terms on a web forum. And as far as I'm aware, drivers on routes with in-cab signalling have to keep an eye on screens in their cabs, as well as what's out of the window. Or is that way of operating also another accident waiting to happen?

We live in a world where cost is everything, nothing will be done about it until someone is seriously injured. Many many people have pointed out that DOO is not as safe as having a guard which has been completely ignored. The whole point of what FGW is doing is cost cutting. If they were concerned by safety they would have said they would recruit extra guards so there would be spares available to go if the diagrammed guard is unavailable. So what's the cheaper alternative? Ow yeah force through a DOO agreement regardless. The whole reason the RMT are taking this stand now is to show staff and unions will not allow any more DOO to be introduced.

There is a huge difference between am ERTMS driver watching their in cab signalling to a driver having to watch multiple CCTV screens while his/her train is leaving the platform. As has been pointed out, current CCTV systems turn off above 3mph so the driver is not distracted, so they are completely blind to what may be happening behind them. To make that comparison is frankly ridiculous :roll:

 

[ANorthernGuard]

We live in a world where cost is everything, nothing will be done about it until someone is seriously injured. Many many people have pointed out that DOO is not as safe as having a guard which has been completely ignored. The whole point of what FGW is doing is cost cutting. If they were concerned by safety they would have said they would recruit extra guards so there would be spares available to go if the diagrammed guard is unavailable. So what's the cheaper alternative? Ow yeah force through a DOO agreement regardless. The whole reason the RMT are taking this stand now is to show staff and unions will not allow any more DOO to be introduced.

There is a huge difference between am ERTMS driver watching their in cab signalling to a driver having to watch multiple CCTV screens while his/her train is leaving the platform. As has been pointed out, current CCTV systems turn off above 3mph so the driver is not distracted, so they are completely blind to what may be happening behind them. To make that comparison is frankly ridiculous :roll:

Of Course its been ignored. It keeps the politicians and really blinkered few on this forum content. When the sh*t really hits the fan I can see many people refusing to come out of the woodwork as they have been proved totally wrong. I would trust an experienced driver any day over a so called "Risk Assessment" bod who has never worked a train in his/her life.

 

[ComUtoR]

I've lost count of the number of PTI incidents involving DOO trains. Guards have incidents too.

Sorry folks but accidents aren't "waiting to happen". They are happening.

 

[Carlisle]

The fuel protests were nothing to do with the trade unions. They were down to farmers and hauliers.

Ok, I thought drivers at the time were discouraged by their unions from crossing the picket lines, but on second thoughts it was probably the oil companies rather than unions

 

[pompeyfan]

I think this sums it up perfectly.....

 

[Minilad]

I think this sums it up perfectly.....

Like!!

 

[FordFocus]

Thanks for the post ainsworth74

i thought that maybe the case with the buffets... Not exactly rocket science to change a modular configuration.

Drivers shouldn't be looking at the screens when the train is leaving the platform. They should be looking at the signals, line side signs ahead of them. Not a CCTV monitor until the train has left the platform. Strongly suspect the Health and Safety and union reps won't allow it, if it ever came to this DOO nonsense.

History shows that drivers can blank DOO schemes. When 321s were introduced on Northampton to Euston services, they spent vast amounts of money on DOO mirrors and equipment only for drivers to refuse to take trains without a guard. By midday every train had a guard and have done since then. Solidarity can work on issues like these.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Except on LU that is exactly what they do - they look at their cab screens as they are departing. That is how the driver noticed the issue with the passenger (who subseuently went under) at Clapham South.

The industry is waiting the outcome on that one with much interest. There is a school of thought developing that the amount of passengers on a platform is going to influence future crew and platform staff provision and that the days of simple DOO are coming to an end for many locations.

As to the catering provision on the GW SET, the DfT closed down the design relatively early (the ECML sets had more time to be altered) and they also have the say on any mods. The TOC is seen by the DfT as just the operator of already agreed design trains and has to sign up to the DfT's contract with Agility, in which just about everything is already specified for you.

 

[bnm]

Regarding the modular nature of the catering provision. Yes, a future operator of the Greater Western could replace trolley service with a buffet. The current operator has ordered sets without though. The contract is signed, and the build is underway (first few sets being built in Japan). I imagine it's too late now to change interior spec without penalty clauses.