W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[LateThanNever]

In the case of a lot of modern stock with plug doors, an open door would be out of gauge.

Fair enough - so given that there is not a great deal of that and only some of it is going to be out of gauge then I'd suggest they do it where it's possible. Do think there is rather too much that tends to be put in the too difficult category. In fact, to preserve the guard, it is actually in their interest to put as much as possible in the too difficult category!

 

[BestWestern]

While I can absolutely understand that people have different views about this issue it simply isn't true that dispatch incidents like West Wickham would not happen with a Guard on board. Elsewhere I in this thread (post #1660) I linked some detailed statistics about PTI fatalities since 2001 for guarded and non guarded trains. Basically no difference between the two types (2 guarded 1 DOO).

Yes we may have opinions about this but the debate isn't helped by ignoring some of the facts.

I disagree.

I said somewhere upthread that if an incident occurs on a Guarded train, the likelihood is that it is down to culpable error on the part of one individual. The procedures in place require that a Guard should not dispatch a train until all doors can be seen to be properly closed and free of any danger. If a similar incident occurs on DOO, it can be argued that it was primarily due to the method of operation being inherently risk-prone.

I completely disagree that West Wickham would have happened had there been a Guard on the train; the risk would have been significantly reduced due to above mentioned procedure.

Also consider that figures showing only deaths are less than half of the story; neither the West Wickham incident or the recent occurrence at Hayes & Harlington - nor indeed the countless other thankfully non-fatal 'trap and drag' incidents that occur on DOO far too frequently - would be included in those calculations. That doesn't make them any more acceptable; every one could so easily end in a death.

 

[bramling]

It is very different indeed. As I said above, the conditions on a Tube platform during rush hour would never be tolerated on the national network. Standards are very different.

Can't agree with this. If you look at the Rule Books for mainline and LUL, it will be seen that the dispatch process is virtually identical. The main emphasis is on carrying out a full safety check of the entire train in the period between closing the doors and moving off. LUL drivers have - where fitted - an in-cab monitor which allows them to view the platform whilst departing, however their main emphasis is still expected to be on the road ahead, even on ATO lines.

You can also get unstaffed stations on LUL, as whilst every station is *rostered* to have staff on duty at all times when trains are running, open stations can be left unstaffed if staff are unavailable for any reason.

It's also worth mentioning that the number of doorways that the driver is required to observe on a typical LUL train is comparable to an 8 or 12 car mainline train.

 

[Carlisle]

How on earth did BR manage that?

As a basic guards wage in the 1980s was so poor, it wasn't too hard to persuade most displaced staff to transfer to other possibly more lucrative roles within BR, whilst some of course chose retirement or voluntary redundancy instead. Some strikes happened when DOO was introduced around Glasgow and ASLEF blacked the equipment on lines out of Euston and Waterloo

 

[PermitToTravel]

Why can't the guard view the departure through an open door?

What's wrong with droplights, locked such that a guard's key is needed to open them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's wrong with droplights, locked such that a guard's key is needed to open them?

If I recall, droplights are not allowed in power doors because of the obvious risk of someone being trapped. The cab doors with droplights on things like Turbostars and Desiros are semi-manual so this cannot occur.

442s have them but they are old so that is no doubt grandfather rights as they were built that way.

 

[ComUtoR]

While I can absolutely understand that people have different views about this issue it simply isn't true that dispatch incidents like West Wickham would not happen with a Guard on board.

I haven't stated that ALL incidents wouldn't happen. West Wickham would not have happened. It would not have happened because the Guard would have been closing the doors from the middle of the train and would have seen the woman caught in the doors. The Guard would have also dispatched the train from the platform as they are required to leave the cab and carry out the train safety check. Again the woman trapped would have been seen by the Guard. Lastly the Guard will watch the train leave the platform from the window so if all of the above failed then there is a final check.

As to statistics. It has already been highlighted that there isn't any for DOO Vs Guard dispatch. We can pull stats all day with little to no headway in the debate.

When you remove the Guard it changes the risk. It is not a risk I am prepared to support.

I've been watching this thread and so far I haven't seen any real benefit to the passenger and I'm stunned people are happy to accept that.

 

[BestWestern]

Can't agree with this. If you look at the Rule Books for mainline and LUL, it will be seen that the dispatch process is virtually identical. The main emphasis is on carrying out a full safety check of the entire train in the period between closing the doors and moving off. LUL drivers have - where fitted - an in-cab monitor which allows them to view the platform whilst departing, however their main emphasis is still expected to be on the road ahead, even on ATO lines.

You can also get unstaffed stations on LUL, as whilst every station is *rostered* to have staff on duty at all times when trains are running, open stations can be left unstaffed if staff are unavailable for any reason.

It's also worth mentioning that the number of doorways that the driver is required to observe on a typical LUL train is comparable to an 8 or 12 car mainline train.

I can only assume we work for very different employers then! As I've said before, at our shack anybody dispatching a train with several hundred punters teetering on the edge of the platform would he held entirely culpable if one of them ended up down the gap. And any Guard closing doors on people would also be in for a pretty hard time.

On LUL both of these things appear to be standard practise.

 

[bramling]

I can only assume we work for very different employers then! As I've said before, at our shack anybody dispatching a train with several hundred punters teetering on the edge of the platform would he held entirely culpable if one of them ended up down the gap. And any Guard closing doors on people would also be in for a pretty hard time.

On LUL both of these things appear to be standard practise.

I can assure you that LUL drivers take the safety check very seriously. It's something that is observed in competence assurance, and no driver worthy of the grade would knowingly depart a platform with people in an unsafe position. The safety statistics are there to back this up - dragging incidents are extremely rare, as are people coming into contact with trains leaving a platform. Most platform/train interface incidents are either people getting caught in closing doors when running to board a train or alighting whilst doors are closing, or are alcohol related mishaps.

LU has gone to lengths to improve platform/train safety in recent years. From yellow lines on platforms to selected platforms being staffed with specially trained staff at busy times, as well as working groups tasked with identifying safety improvements, reviewing incidents etc.

I have certainly seen mainline trains close doors whilst people are attempting to board, London Bridge platform 6 was a classic example. Likewise, a morning peak at many mainline commuter stations in the London area will see trains dispatched with people standing near the edge. At Hitchin, for example, regular commuters know where to line up on the platform for their door, and for certain services will arrive up to 20 minutes early to secure their spot at the platform edge, letting other services go in the meantime. They certainly don't stand back from the edge as that risks losing the spot, and there's no staff on the platform to keep an eye on things. All a symptom of an ever more overcrowded railway and country unfortunately, but passenger behavior doesn't change depending on whether it's mainline or metro- the self-same people lining up at Hitchin will, 45 mins later, be doing the same whilst attempting to board an Underground train at King's Cross or Finsbury Park.

 

[notadriver]

I can't believe drivers of ATO trains are required to view the road ahead in the same way that drivers of manual controlled trains are. After all on the DLR the passenger service agent may not be in the front.

 

[Harlan Cage]

After the recent incident on a train in France I would have thought increasing rather than reducing staff on trains would be a better idea.! I guess not however and if anything does occur the phrase "Lessons will be learnt" will be banned around followed by a call for driverless trains on all UK rail lines!

HC

 

[yorkie]

After the recent incident on a train in France I would have thought increasing rather than reducing staff on trains would be a better idea.!

FGW are increasing staff!

The dispute is about the role of staff and their pay & conditions.

 

[455driver]

FGW are increasing staff!

And round we go again' :roll:
What jobs will these staff be doing, how much use will they be in an emergency, what sort of safety training will they receive, etc.

I suppose if you want extra milk they will be very useful indeed but in an evacuation they won't be any use at all!

As most trains to the South West will be formed of 2 five coach trains coupled together there will obviously be more on board staff anyway.

 

[yorkie]

And round we go again' :roll:

Indeed, however Harlan Cage was under the impression there would be less staff on the trains, and that's not what is proposed.

 

[455driver]

Indeed, however Harlan Cage was under the impression there would be less staff on the trains, and that's not what is proposed.

Maybe he was talking about staff who could be useful during disruption or an emergency situation, something FGW have been completely silent about.

 

[bramling]

I can't believe drivers of ATO trains are required to view the road ahead in the same way that drivers of manual controlled trains are. After all on the DLR the passenger service agent may not be in the front.

There's still the possibility of obstructions on the track, eg trees, track workers who haven't followed the correct procedure or who have strayed away from their booked area, trespassers, illuminated rail gap indicators, route indicators (both the latter are incorporated into the ATO on some lines not others), track defects, flooding etc. The only difference with ATO is the driver doesn't physically control the train speed, and doesn't have to respond to signals. Everything else is the same, the driver is still in charge of the train.

 

[A-driver]

Indeed, however Harlan Cage was under the impression there would be less staff on the trains, and that's not what is proposed.

There will be less staff who can help operationally. There may be more staff trained to push a trolley but these staff will in effect be passengers if anything goes wrong. Same as current catering staff and ticket inspection staff. No PTS, no way of communicating with the driver other than via pass com (which passengers can also use anyway), no training in the trains exact location, no way of contacting the signaller etc.

Let's not get confused here, you can get rid of the guard (50% of the trains operational staff) and replace them with 6 cleaners and 6 caterers but you are not increasing the trains staff for emergencies etc by 11, you are still reducing it by 1!

 

[HH]

Ah okay then..... Lorries are now similar to trains with lots of people boarding and alighting at each station. Remind me, where is the Platform Lorry Interface in this scenario?

What has Platforms to do with it? There is a vehicle/person interface; that's the important bit. You guys can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[regulation9]

There will be less staff who can help operationally. There may be more staff trained to push a trolley but these staff will in effect be passengers if anything goes wrong. Same as current catering staff and ticket inspection staff. No PTS, no way of communicating with the driver other than via pass com (which passengers can also use anyway), no training in the trains exact location, no way of contacting the signaller etc.

Let's not get confused here, you can get rid of the guard (50% of the trains operational staff) and replace them with 6 cleaners and 6 caterers but you are not increasing the trains staff for emergencies etc by 11, you are still reducing it by 1!

So the various letters I have had from FGW say that they are employing 100 extra on board staff. Some are Train Managers and some are Customer Hosts. So what they are saying is they are employing more Train Managers. The letter I got yesterday said the Train Managers would keep all their operational competencies.

So what I have in writing suggests there will be more trained staff not fewer.

 

[387star]

As a guard I have been told by a driver i am a hypocrit for going driving (awaiting a start date) with thameslink which is doo I am in a pool with a toc which has guards but the difference is they cannot guarantee the job

But can you blame me?! I want to be a driver anyway regardless but it is hardly great times to be a guard right now

 

[Captain Chaos]

As a guard I have been told by a driver i am a hypocrit for going driving (awaiting a start date) with thameslink which is doo I am in a pool with a toc which has guards but the difference is they cannot guarantee the job

But can you blame me?! I want to be a driver anyway regardless but it is hardly great times to be a guard right now

I'm a Guard and have applied to go for driving on DOO services and have received great support from everyone! You're not a hypocrite. That's just the way it's being run. Nothing you can do about that. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Driving is hard to get into so you have to take whatever you can get at the time. Any rail staff would know that.

 

[Carlisle]

Let's not get confused here, you can get rid of the guard (50% of the trains operational staff) and replace them with 6 cleaners and 6 caterers but you are not increasing the trains staff for emergencies etc by 11, you are still reducing it by 1!

It's not quite that blatant a difference as ive met onboard staff who said they do receive training in various safety and emergency procedures relating to the trains they work, but not route knowledge

 

[notadriver]

I've been told a service is being run with a driver manager doing the guards role on one service. Seems in an emergency replacement guards can be trained up quickly ?

 

[BestWestern]

I've been told a service is being run with a driver manager doing the guards role on one service. Seems in an emergency replacement guards can be trained up quickly ?

Yup. A mere few days to cover Rules training, PTS, traction and route knowledge.

You may draw your own conclusions as to the adequacy of those arrangements.

 

[ainsworth74]

There's been plenty of innuendo from various members on the topic of the replacement 'guards' but has there been anything official from Unions? If they were a safety risk I'd have thought they'd have been all over it?

 

[455driver]

So the various letters I have had from FGW say that they are employing 100 extra on board staff. Some are Train Managers and some are Customer Hosts. So what they are saying is they are employing more Train Managers. The letter I got yesterday said the Train Managers would keep all their operational competencies.

So what I have in writing suggests there will be more trained staff not fewer.

Try reading the letters properly and then read between the lines!
The letters state that existing train managers are protected, it doesn't say what will happen to any new ones but the fact it says existing leads me to think that any new TM's will be on worse contracts, can you pointless where it says all existing and not all train managers are safe leads me to think that any new ones will be on fixed term contracts?

You have fallen for the half truths and open statements.

 

[Captain Chaos]

There's been plenty of innuendo from various members on the topic of the replacement 'guards' but has there been anything official from Unions? If they were a safety risk I'd have thought they'd have been all over it?

TSSA got involved and then backed down when the company said all was above board and that managers were not being bullied but were volunteering to work other roles. I think they do the very least they really need. I cannot see it being possible to cram a 16 week course into a few hours. The ORR are satisfied anyway. I've no idea if they are being made to take the tests though to ascertain concentration etc. If they are then I'd like to Know what the failure rate is because some people will fail then for sure I would have thought?

 

[455driver]

TSSA got involved and then backed down when the company said all was above board and that managers were not being bullied but were volunteering to work other roles. I think they do the very least they really need. I cannot see it being possible to cram a 16 week course into a few hours. The ORR are satisfied anyway. I've no idea if they are being made to take the tests though to ascertain concentration etc. If they are then I'd like to Know what the failure rate is because some people will fail then for sure I would have thought?

These are the same Managers who are subject to an annual 'review', upset the apple cart or don't toe the company line and guess what happens at your next review?
I spoke to several Managers about and they are not happy but have to do their bit or else they know what will happen.

 

[Captain Chaos]

These are the same Managers who are subject to an annual 'review', upset the apple cart or don't toe the company line and guess what happens at your next review?
I spoke to several Managers about and they are not happy but have to do their bit or else they know what will happen.

I couldn't possibly comment...

 

[regulation9]

Try reading the letters properly and then read between the lines!
The letters state that existing train managers are protected, it doesn't say what will happen to any new ones but the fact it says existing leads me to think that any new TM's will be on worse contracts, can you pointless where it says all existing and not all train managers are safe leads me to think that any new ones will be on fixed term contracts?

You have fallen for the half truths and open statements.

So in post #1755 you said that FGW have been silent on competencies for on train staff. When they send out a letter saying Train Managers will keep all their safety competencies and the trains will not run without a competent Train Manager that is apparently misleading. There's no satisfying some people I guess.