W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[455driver]

Oh we nearly had a page without Yorkie mentioning his preferred method of working!

I wonder if all those saying 'I cant see Inter City trains being run DOO' would like to bet their jobs on it?
Because that is what the Guards are doing now, you might not be able to see it but us in the industry most certainly can and if this gets in then the Guard is doomed, all other on board staff are optional as it is, IEPs on routes less than an hour wont have any catering, it isn't much of a stretch to make that an hour and fifteen minutes so that's the Bristols running without catering, once that settles down it will become an hour and a half which just about gets us to Cardiff etc etc, so if they get this in the driver will be the only guaranteed member of staff on board.

You can take the FGW propaganda at face value if you like but there are so many questions which 'they' wont (or cant) answer that us that are involved in this are very sceptical, after all if their proposals are exactly as they intend to run the trains why wont they give any definitive answers to the questions?
A few proper answers and this could all be sorted, I wonder why those answers are not forthcoming?

 

[yorkie]

I didn't state any preference.

 

[BestWestern]

Oh we nearly had a page without Yorkie mentioning his preferred method of working!

I wonder if all those saying 'I cant see Inter City trains being run DOO' would like to bet their jobs on it?
Because that is what the Guards are doing now, you might not be able to see it but us in the industry most certainly can and if this gets in then the Guard is doomed, all other on board staff are optional as it is, IEPs on routes less than an hour wont have any catering, it isn't much of a stretch to make that an hour and fifteen minutes so that's the Bristols running without catering, once that settles down it will become an hour and a half which just about gets us to Cardiff etc etc, so if they get this in the driver will be the only guaranteed member of staff on board.

You can take the FGW propaganda at face value if you like but there are so many questions which 'they' wont (or cant) answer that us that are involved in this are very sceptical, after all if their proposals are exactly as they intend to run the trains why wont they give any definitive answers to the questions?
A few proper answers and this could all be sorted, I wonder why those answers are not forthcoming?

It's okay, there are a couple of blokes on here who have ALL the answers.... :roll:

 

[455driver]

I didn't state any preference.

Your love of all things Stra-----de precedes you!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's okay, there are a couple of blokes on here who have ALL the answers.... :roll:

Its a pity it isn't their jobs on the line if they are sooooo sure isn't it!

 

[Aictos]

Your love of all things Stra-----de precedes you!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Its a pity it isn't their jobs on the line if they are sooooo sure isn't it!

Indeed, which is why I fully support the stance taken by my fellow RMT members.

 

[bnm]

It's okay, there are a couple of blokes on here who have ALL the answers.... :roll:

To save me going through the whole thread again, could you provide these answers you've seen others write?

 

[Carlisle]

In a ideal world, a number of ex NSE routes would be operated along the Strathclyde model that are currently DOO anyway but due to various reasons and not all due to Union objections, it will never happen .

How do you know what will and won't ever happen?
Aside from C2C the privatised railway has basically parked the issue of DOO .This situation was never going to stay like that forever.As most of our railway requires subsidies the paymasters were always likely to ask sooner or later ,can it be expanded or is it unsafe and should really be phased out?

 

[cactustwirly]

DOO works well on local commuter services, for example my local service (The Reading/Oxford stopper) but it doesn't work as well on Intercity services.

I don't agree with the RMT on this action, because (as I understand) it's about the method of door operation (like XC and VTWC) and DOO in a DOO area as a last resort.

The RMT is being niave expecting the IEPs to operate in exactly the same way as 1970s HSTs.

 

[455driver]

The RMT is being niave expecting the IEPs to operate in exactly the same way as 1970s HSTs.

So you are saying that Virgin East Coast are naïve are you?
Interesting!

They are going to be operating their IEPs with the guard having sole control of the doors, just like they do on the 1970s HSTs and 1990s Mark 4s!
At least until refranching time when the DaFT will stipulate those going over to DOO as well if this gets in on FGW.

 

[Carlisle]

At least until refranching time when the DaFT will stipulate those going over to DOO as well if this gets in on FGW.

So you are saying , regardless of what might or might not be proved best practice for the railways future , it should be decided simply by trade union power

 

[ainsworth74]

At least until refranching time when the DaFT will stipulate those going over to DOO as well if this gets in on FGW.

That's got to be their long term play here surely? Go through all the pain on the GWML and have FGW do your dirty work. Then, when it's successful (by whatever metric chosen to make it look good), force it onto ICEC the next time that franchise comes up for renewal.

Can't see it going any other way to be honest.

 

[craigybagel]

.

I don't agree with the RMT on this action, because (as I understand) it's about the method of door operation (like XC and VTWC) and DOO in a DOO area as a last resort.

You understand wrong - this is not what XC or VTWC do. With them, the guard is involved in every dispatch, and the train will not move 1 inch with passengers on without a guard. FGW are proposing something that is much less than that.

The RMT is being niave expecting the IEPs to operate in exactly the same way as 1970s HSTs.

As 455Driver has pointed out, VTEC are planning on doing exactly that, which makes you wonder what the problem is. To that I will add the huge amounts of modern trains across the country still being operated the same way, and future fleets at the likes of SWT which also will be.

That said, I'm starting to wonder if maybe this thread should be closed? The pro and anti DOO sides are never going to agree, we're going around in circles.

 

[jimm]

Oh we nearly had a page without Yorkie mentioning his preferred method of working!

I wonder if all those saying 'I cant see Inter City trains being run DOO' would like to bet their jobs on it?
Because that is what the Guards are doing now, you might not be able to see it but us in the industry most certainly can and if this gets in then the Guard is doomed, all other on board staff are optional as it is, IEPs on routes less than an hour wont have any catering, it isn't much of a stretch to make that an hour and fifteen minutes so that's the Bristols running without catering, once that settles down it will become an hour and a half which just about gets us to Cardiff etc etc, so if they get this in the driver will be the only guaranteed member of staff on board.

You can take the FGW propaganda at face value if you like but there are so many questions which 'they' wont (or cant) answer that us that are involved in this are very sceptical, after all if their proposals are exactly as they intend to run the trains why wont they give any definitive answers to the questions?
A few proper answers and this could all be sorted, I wonder why those answers are not forthcoming?

And which routes will IEPs be working with journey times of less than an hour?

Because off-hand I can't think of any, unless you mean they might fill in on a Paddington-Oxford and return job, where the catering provided currently on HSTs doing such round trips at present is, er, nothing - unless they happen to be one of the random trains where a Rail Gourmet trolley is provided.

And with half the PAD-OXF fast service being provided by hourly Cotswold Line IEPs, a lot of services between those two stations will continue to have catering provided anyway.

A few proper answers and this could all be sorted

Really? Presumably just so long as they are the answers you want to hear. And somehow I doubt that is going to be the case, because sooner or later there will have to be a compromise, whether people like its terms or not.

 

[plymothian]

I do think the role of the guard as we know it is doomed nationally, as per the McNulty report.
He can't recommend another Beeching (or even a Serpell "Beeching II"), so his Beeching III turned to cost saving and value for moment, so to cut costs and preserve revenue along with the ubiquitous customer service, travelling ticket inspectors is all that is needed.

 

[Dave1987]

DOO works well on local commuter services, for example my local service (The Reading/Oxford stopper) but it doesn't work as well on Intercity services.

I don't agree with the RMT on this action, because (as I understand) it's about the method of door operation (like XC and VTWC) and DOO in a DOO area as a last resort.

The RMT is being niave expecting the IEPs to operate in exactly the same way as 1970s HSTs.

you see this is where FGW have got their PR catch phrase hat on instead of discussing the real issue. They are constantly quoting that bloody line which I find extremely infuriating as it has nothing to do with operating new trains in the same way as the old ones. This is about saving a few quid by getting rid of guards and putting more workload on the driver. They are just using that catch phrase to appease the public. I drive both DOO and with a guard and can't emphasise enough how much less the workload is when you have a guard because once I've stopped in the platform all I am thinking about is what my next signal is showing and where my next station stop is (and maybe about speed restrictions and other stuff). The risk of SAS SPAD's and SOY SPAD's is so much less with a guard.

 

[BestWestern]

To save me going through the whole thread again, could you provide these answers you've seen others write?

You can't remember all those posts you've written...??!

Its a pity it isn't their jobs on the line if they are sooooo sure isn't it!

Presumably they would think it jolly indecent to protest about it if they were; I guess they'd tell all their colleagues to stand back and accept it... :roll:

 

[bnm]

You can't remember all those posts you've written...??!

Not once in this thread have I given any answers. You're conflating my opposition to the strike action - for which support from staff is thankfully ebbing away, excepting the belligerent minority - with any opinion I might hold on Running IEP services in DOO.

The industrial action is not only about DOO of course.

 

[regulation9]

Not once in this thread have I given any answers. You're conflating my opposition to the strike action - for which support from staff is thankfully ebbing away, excepting the belligerent minority - with any opinion I might hold on Running IEP services in DOO.

The industrial action is not only about DOO of course.

For those of you who are following what is actually going on in FGW you might have spotted that this isn't about DOO at all any more. It is about who controls the doors. The latest proposals have Guards on all trains in FGW that are not already DOO. So this dispute pretty much boils down to who presses the button to close the doors. From what I hear the other parts of the dispute are largely resolved.

All those other grades, most of which are paid less than Guards, on strike over who closes doors. It seems crazy to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have the proposals that trains could run completely without guards in disruption gone, then?

 

[Jonfun]

For those of you who are following what is actually going on in FGW you might have spotted that this isn't about DOO at all any more. It is about who controls the doors. The latest proposals have Guards on all trains in FGW that are not already DOO. So this dispute pretty much boils down to who presses the button to close the doors. From what I hear the other parts of the dispute are largely resolved.

All those other grades, most of which are paid less than Guards, on strike over who closes doors. It seems crazy to me.

What are these latest proposals then, a voyager-style system whereby the Guard gives a buzzer code to the driver to close the doors? A system where the Guard activates the drivers' door controls from inside the train?

 

[Kentish Paul]

As a matter of interest was there any union opposition to the introduction of the class 395? Admitedly they had a guaranted On Board Manager at all times but the driver does everything else. An exception is St Pancras where it is platform despatch with the usual CD/RA procedure.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Have the proposals that trains could run completely without guards in disruption gone, then?

I doubt it. Also what everyone has to remember is that IEP will be introduced under the current FGW regime. There is nothing to stop the next franchise award doing away with guards. Nothing at all.

 

[BestWestern]

Not once in this thread have I given any answers. You're conflating my opposition to the strike action - for which support from staff is thankfully ebbing away, excepting the belligerent minority - with any opinion I might hold on Running IEP services in DOO.

The industrial action is not only about DOO of course.

Your condescening tone doesn't appear to reflect the reality, I'm afraid. Almost a zero turnout looking likely for tomorrow. Your, presumably fairly limited, sources are perhaps rather opinionated, and leading you to believe there is rather less support than there is.

Still, don't let the truth distract you from your (increasingly tedious) trolling heh

 

[regulation9]

As a matter of interest was there any union opposition to the introduction of the class 395? Admitedly they had a guaranted On Board Manager at all times but the driver does everything else. An exception is St Pancras where it is platform despatch with the usual CD/RA procedure.

It was a new service so Southeastern were able to decide how it was operated. Someone in Southeastern tells me that RMT did not have trade union recognition for the on board staff to start off with. Apparently as part of an arrangement to get official recognition RMT had to accept that the method of working was acceptable. So I'm told...

 

[alastair]

Your condescening tone doesn't appear to reflect the reality, I'm afraid. Almost a zero turnout looking likely for tomorrow. Your, presumably fairly limited, sources are perhaps rather opinionated, and leading you to believe there is rather less support than there is.

Still, don't let the truth distract you from your (increasingly tedious) trolling heh

So you say "almost a zero turnout looking likely for tomorrow",however FGW on their website and in todays press say they " will be running 70% of their normal Sunday services".

Surely you can't both be right?

 

[bnm]

Still, don't let the truth distract you from your (increasingly tedious) trolling heh

Of course I'm opinionated. It's me posting my opinions.

I strongly repudiate the accusation of trolling an condescension though. If you seriously believe that, (smiley used as pre-emptive defence of that accusation perhaps?) then report me to the moderators and let them decide. What I see is an attempt to shut down a viewpoint you disagree with by making baseless accusations. Heh? :roll:

 

[Carlisle]

As a matter of interest was there any union opposition to the introduction of the class 395? Admitedly they had a guaranted On Board Manager at all times but the driver does everything else. An exception is St Pancras where it is platform despatch with the usual CD/RA procedure.

I believe in the Southeastern case the union was eventually prepared to compromise on condition there was a garunted train manager at all times because technically they could run with only the driver as a single unit

 

[Robertj21a]

you see this is where FGW have got their PR catch phrase hat on instead of discussing the real issue. They are constantly quoting that bloody line which I find extremely infuriating as it has nothing to do with operating new trains in the same way as the old ones. This is about saving a few quid by getting rid of guards and putting more workload on the driver. They are just using that catch phrase to appease the public. I drive both DOO and with a guard and can't emphasise enough how much less the workload is when you have a guard because once I've stopped in the platform all I am thinking about is what my next signal is showing and where my next station stop is (and maybe about speed restrictions and other stuff). The risk of SAS SPAD's and SOY SPAD's is so much less with a guard.

Dave,

I'm sorry if I'm going to upset you (or anyone else), it's really not my intention. As someone who readily admits that I don't work in the industry, what surprises me is that you feel a guard makes so much difference. In other recent posts there seems to be a recognition (from most people at least) that the dispute is coming down to who controls the doors. To be honest, I'm struggling to see how that task is particularly onerous when it's already in operation in other parts of the country. What is it that I've probably missed ?

 

[HowardGWR]

I would be interested in a discussion about the role of a train manager (outside operating doors) and wonder if a new thread for that is advisable. I see a need for qualities in a type of person who you would normally associate with the emergency services, whilst commanding customer support qualities. An impressive all-rounder, who would probably deserve pay on a par with drivers.

I suspect many present staff may well have those qualities, but it would be interesting to know what others think.

 

[Jonfun]

Dave,

I'm sorry if I'm going to upset you (or anyone else), it's really not my intention. As someone who readily admits that I don't work in the industry, what surprises me is that you feel a guard makes so much difference. In other recent posts there seems to be a recognition (from most people at least) that the dispute is coming down to who controls the doors. To be honest, I'm struggling to see how that task is particularly onerous when it's already in operation in other parts of the country. What is it that I've probably missed ?

Who operates the doors is a relatively insignificant point, in the grand scheme of things. On Voyagers and some other units (some electrostars?) the driver opens the doors and closes them when given the instruction by the Guard. The Guard then checks to ensure that nobody is in an unsafe position from his local door and that the signal is clear, then gives the ready to start signal and observes through the window for any signals of distress as the train leaves the platform. This method of working, whilst still allowing the Guard to retain control of the dispatch, means the driver does the operation of the doors.

What is significant is the responsibility of who dispatches the train. Making the train DOO removes the safeguard of having someone on the platform physically checking there are no hazards, also removes one layer of protectiom against SASPADs (two pairs of eyes is better than one), and means that either nobody observes the train as it leaves the platform, or the driver does and hence is looking away from where the train is going - introducing a risk of SPADs (eg at locations where the signal is remote from the platform), missed speed resriction reminders, observing level crossings where they sit following a platform etc etc.

These days the rail industry has a massive focus on "Platform Train Interface" issues, people falling between train and platform etc, and it seems to me counter productive to then take away one of the safeguards against such incidenta.