W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[Greenback]

Indeed, RPI, I'm off out of it all....at least for now!

 

[LowLevel]

I keep saying the same but it's bloody hard to stay away

 

[Greenback]

Yes it is, oops, see I'm back again

 

[Dave1987]

London Midland tweeted this morning that their guards primary role is the safety of the train and passengers. And that revenue duties are only done if there is time to do so. So for FGW revenue duties are clearly more important.

 

[Carlisle]

Nobody else chooses to run DOO intercity services including on the most modern of trains.
.

Brighton-London
Cambridge-London
Oxford -London
Peterborough-London
Colchester-London
Glasgow-Edinburgh
+ All HS2 domestic services

 

[Dave1987]

Brighton-London
Cambridge-London
Oxford -London
Glasgow-Edinburgh
+ All HA2 domestic services

Cambridge - London isn't an intercity service.

 

[Greenback]

I don't think any of them came under the BR Inter City profit centre at the time of privatisation, did they?

Good grief, I really can't stay away, can I?

 

[ainsworth74]

Good grief, I really can't stay away, can I?

We can ban you if you like?

 

[Carlisle]

I don't think any of them came under the BR Inter City profit centre at the time of privatisation, did they?

Good grief, I really can't stay away, can I?

No they didn't at that particular period, but the Inter City classification has been applied to various different routes and services throughout various different periods in its history as many old maps will demonstrate

 

[Greenback]

That's true, but since privatisation it's been generally accepted that inter city refers to those routes that were part of the IC profit centre under BR. I'm certain that's the deifnition being used here, so the Anglia main Line, Great Western and South Wales main lines, East Coast, West Coast and Midland main lines are included, but not routes like the South West Main Line, London to Brighton or London to Cambridge.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We can ban you if you like?

Can I just be banned form this thread?

 

[FordFocus]

No they didn't at that particular period, but the Inter City classification has been applied to various different routes and services throughout various different periods in its history as many old maps will demonstrate

Slam door sets on some of them like Brighton - London way before the modernisation era of 377s

 

[A-driver]

Brighton-London

Cambridge-London

Oxford -London

Peterborough-London

Colchester-London

Glasgow-Edinburgh

+ All HS2 domestic services

Not intercity. The IC (ie non commuter) Peterborough, Oxford & Colchester-London trains are non-DOO. Only the commuter (slower) services are. Cambridge and Brighton to London are commuter services, not intercity. Glasgow-Edinburgh is not intercity except the EC services which are non DOO.

 

[jimm]

That's true, but since privatisation it's been generally accepted that inter city refers to those routes that were part of the IC profit centre under BR. I'm certain that's the deifnition being used here, so the Anglia main Line, Great Western and South Wales main lines, East Coast, West Coast and Midland main lines are included, but not routes like the South West Main Line, London to Brighton or London to Cambridge

But the South West Main Line services to Southampton and Bournemouth - and I think the Brighton route - were certainly featured in the BR InterCity services guide booklets that were sent out to businesses and available at major stations for many years. And at some point recently, FGW reclassified the Oxford fasts and Cotswold Line services to become part of its High Speed Services group, even though Turbos still feature prominently on the route, so the definition has always been fairly elastic.

 

[Carlisle]

Not intercity. The IC (ie non commuter) Peterborough, Oxford & Colchester-London trains are non-DOO. Only the commuter (slower) services are. Cambridge and Brighton to London are commuter services, not intercity. Glasgow-Edinburgh is not intercity except the EC services which are non DOO.

So providing route clearance and type training were in order, there would be very few issues If they started running IEPs in DOO mode tomorrow on any of the above routes as long as they replaced or supplemented an existing DMU or EMU diagram rather than an Inter City set?

 

[BestWestern]

So providing route clearance and type training were in order, there would be very few issues If they started running IEPs in DOO mode tomorrow on any of the above routes as long as they replaced or supplemented an existing DMU or EMU diagram rather than an Inter City set?

Neither Union wants that to happen. The issue is that there is an existing DOO operation within FGW, and little can realistically be done to reverse that. Some elements were the making of previous generations with different priorities; sadly that much has to be accepted. The concentration now is taking all channels to prevent it spreading any further.

 

[HowardGWR]

I find this discussion of what is 'Inter-City' and what not, in relation to whether it is safe for drivers to open and close doors on the new trains, totally irrelevant. The discussion should be about what job description is appropriate to train staff, following the introduction of the new trains with automatic doors, specifically on long distance services. I had hoped the RMT would grasp the opportunities to ensure full manning of the new services with train managers. I quite agree that it is unacceptable not to have someone, other than the driver, who looks after the 'cabin' and its occupants. That's a full time job with great responsibility and I always have great admiration when I see that function being exercised on aeroplanes by the highly trained cabin chief stewards.

 

[BestWestern]

Unfortunately though, that isn't want FGW want. They have expressly stated their desire to have the option of running the trains in full DOO mode, with nobody whatsoever in the 'cabin', in circumstances of their choosing. How often does that happen on an aeroplane?! Indeed the example offered to staff as what would justify this approach, was that it would help during times of severe service disruption - the time when an onboard presence is most vital.

What the RMT are 'grasping' here is the really rather apparent fact that once Guards are no longer an essential requirement, the operator has free reign to do whatever it pleases with those staff, their pay and conditions, their livelihoods and their futures. Any promise offered currently has no meaning beyond the current franchise extension period and into the future. Most would, I'm sure, feel equally compelled to take action if it were their jobs being placed in such jepardy.

 

[Greenback]

The discussion on what is or isn't inter city is pretty irrelevant. I agree that training is important, and in my view this is what the RMT are trying to achieve - no downgrading of future TM's by trying to ensure that the role remains the same.

I'm not entirely sure that fixing on door operation is the right way to achieve this objective, but I do think that it's the right objective to ensure that on train staff remain trained to the current standards and able to provide practical assistance during a wide range of emergency situations, including going on to the track where necessary.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Won't the tech behind automatic SDO eventually, in the long term find its way onto every train and platform. Unless the cab door window can be slid down, isn't it the same saftey wise once the doors are closed for either guard operation or DOO as neither will be able to see down the train. DOO might be very marginally safer as the cameras will allow them to see down the platform as the train is pulling out

 

[swt_passenger]

DOO might be very marginally safer as the cameras will allow them to see down the platform as the train is pulling out

Except we keep getting told that isn't how it works (on mainline trains); the monitors automatically go off as soon as the train starts to move...

 

[Greenback]

I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to make a comment on the safety aspect of drivers operating doors. I'll leave that to those who know more about such things than I do!

All i will say is that things change, ways of working evolve and safety is more important and high profile now than it ever has been.

 

[Fincra5]

Won't the tech behind automatic SDO eventually, in the long term find its way onto every train and platform. Unless the cab door window can be slid down, isn't it the same saftey wise once the doors are closed for either guard operation or DOO as neither will be able to see down the train. DOO might be very marginally safer as the cameras will allow them to see down the platform as the train is pulling out

When I drove a 377 DOO (Which I disliked vs having a guard previously), the DOO cameras go off as soon as you start moving...

 

[Robertj21a]

When I drove a 377 DOO (Which I disliked vs having a guard previously), the DOO cameras go off as soon as you start moving...

No doubt the timing can be altered if necessary.

 

[ainsworth74]

But then that's a distraction for the driver who really should be focusing on the road ahead. Particularly if there are signals at the end of the platform on not far from it.

Perhaps there should be someone else on-board who is responsible for 'guarding' the monitors whilst the train is pulling out

 

[Carlisle]

Neither Union wants that to happen. The issue is that there is an existing DOO operation within FGW, and little can realistically be done to reverse that. Some elements were the making of previous generations with different priorities; sadly that much has to be accepted. The concentration now is taking all channels to prevent it spreading any further.

The realities of modern technology mean in my opinion anyway that both sides in this dispute would be best off at least trying to agree a compromise based around something vaguely similar to the Southeastern Highspeed OBMs on all trains idea , but I'm sure you'll totally disagree with that and see it as downgrading

 

[HowardGWR]

No doubt the timing can be altered if necessary.

Quite. The number of straw men that have been erected in this discussion is impressive. I support fully having a responsible train manager on every long distance train and if that had been agreed to, that would have been the end of the present dispute. There is enough for a TM to do without bothering with doors.

 

[craigybagel]

There is enough for a TM to do without bothering with doors.

As opposed to a driver, who has nothing to do?

 

[plymothian]

If FGW want to run trains in the event of no TM available due to disruption, they've now got a load of managers who've been "trained" up very quickly who they could use instead...

 

[HowardGWR]

As opposed to a driver, who has nothing to do?

This seems another straw man argument (not even that). One wonders how the drivers who do the doors already, manage it.

 

[Delta558]

Unless the cab door window can be slid down, isn't it the same saftey wise once the doors are closed for either guard operation or DOO as neither will be able to see down the train.

But using a similarly spurious argument, though neither can see much if the windows can't be lowered the guard is further back so is more likely to see any commotion caused by an incident (be it passengers panicking or platform staff attempting to stop the train) than the driver who has probably already left the platform. In this scenario, the guard MAY be able to stop the train in time to leave a person seriously injured rather than dead.