ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO

[BestWestern]

Disagree - their role is to provide customer service, which includes operating the train safely, and how to deal with emergency and out of course situations.

The role combines aspects of customer service and safety - but the safety is the primary element, and will always be the Guard's first priority (we're talking Guards as opposed to non safety critical 'on board' roles). The safety role is quite clearly defined in the Rule Book, and that is what counts.

However, the safety element is not an excuse to remain locked in the back cab...

 

[313103]

Disagree - their role is to provide customer service, which includes operating the train safely, and how to deal with emergency and out of course situations.

That is either your personal opinion or your a senior manager who works in a toc and interprets the rule book to suit your own agenda, because i see nothing in the Rule Book that states the Guards role is to provide Customer Service!

If that was the case they wouldnt employ Guards on salaries between £24,000 and £35,000. They would employ agency staff on £15,000 with no Sick benefit, no annual leave and no pension.

 

[BestWestern]

As above, it is the Rule Book which gives the definitive answer. The private TOCs have done their best to muddy the waters, and of course continue to make great effort to do away with Guards altogether. However, so far, the term Guard remains in there, and just as with Driver, Signaller, Shunter etc, the requirements of the role are clearly set out.

If you are making an emergency call you will be expected to identify yourself as the Guard of your train, regardless of whatever it says on your name badge. This makes it clear to the person on the other end that they are dealing with somebody who is properly trained and can handle the situation competently, as opposed to somebody who has a vague job title and whose safety credentials consist of the uniform they are wearing. Everything else that a Guard does, all the fluffy stuff and all the squeezing pennies out of fare dodgers, is in addition to the core role of ensuring the safety of their train, the railway around them, and those using and working on it.

 

[Pumbaa]

The role combines aspects of customer service and safety - but the safety is the primary element, and will always be the Guard's first priority (we're talking Guards as opposed to non safety critical 'on board' roles). The safety role is quite clearly defined in the Rule Book, and that is what counts.

However, the safety element is not an excuse to remain locked in the back cab...

I don't disagree with you - or anyone else for that matter - that safety is the number 1 priority or however else you want to badge it. I feel that it is possible to describe ones purpose as something overarching, whilst still being very clear about the discrete elements. For Guards, I feel that includes safety, revenue (where appropriate), giving of information, answering passenger queries and being the onboard representative of the railway, and that all comes together under the umbrella of customer service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is either your personal opinion or your a senior manager who works in a toc and interprets the rule book to suit your own agenda, because i see nothing in the Rule Book that states the Guards role is to provide Customer Service!



If that was the case they wouldnt employ Guards on salaries between £24,000 and £35,000. They would employ agency staff on £15,000 with no Sick benefit, no annual leave and no pension.

Again, see above. I don't disagree re number one priority of safety. But I don't think priorities and purpose are mutually exclusive.

And equally the Rule Book doesn't define the exact roles and responsibility of everybody on the railway. It merely defines how the operational railway should work.

 

[Mojo]

I cringe at the saying "safety is our number one priority" because safety is something that should be so deeply engrained in our processes and working practices that it is just something that we do, rather than being a priority. On the other hand, "customer service" is something that actually can be prioritised, as it requires us to make an effort to ensure that we are delivering a decent service for our customers; this easily encompasses reliability and safety (after all a dangerous or consistently delayed railway system isn't providing much of a service); it's not just about the 'fluffy stuff.'

 

[dquebec]

I imagine, though, that most railway employees would rather incur a customer complaint, than a manager having a chat with them for breaching a safety rule.

As a passenger, my customer service expectations may be occasionally dismissed/forgotten, if the members of train crew are engaging or preoccupied with their safety responsibilities instead.

I'd rather perceive a conductor as being rude, rather than being unsafe!

 

[BestWestern]

"Excuse me.... excuse me.... EXCUSE ME...." While a TM has his head out of the window of his departing HST and cannot hear a word.

There is a daily example of exactly how safety sometimes does have to take priority over customer service. Similarly, a train defect requiring the Guard to travel in the affected vehicle, meaning it is no longer possible to pass through the train for reasons of revenue and customer service; or a similar situation resulting in the Guard stationing his catering staff in an affected vehicle, meaning loss of catering service. Two more examples.

And perhaps the most significant one of all; trainload of passengers in the wreckage left to their own devices while the Guard is carrying out emergency protection to prevent an accident becoming a disaster when something else piles into it... Yup, we do that too.

Ideally safety and customer service should indeed go together; but sometimes safety does have to be 'our priority'.

 

[A-driver]

Disagree - their role is to provide customer service, which includes operating the train safely, and how to deal with emergency and out of course situations.

That's actually factually inaccurate. Over time the role has developed into a more customer service type role but the actual reason guards were put on trains in the first place was for safety. Whilst a guard is not performing safety duties they can spend time doing customer service duties but it's not the reason the role exists.

 

[highdyke]

The guard’s role was traditionally a safety one, therein lies the conundrum for the modern railway.

In the long gone days of unfitted freight and partially fitted freight the guard’s job was one of primarily preventing coupling snaps and train protection. Hot axle boxes and fires were far more problematic than they are today. Signaling systems were far more primitive and signalmen forgetting trains in section (causing a collision) or long sections where there was no commination with the controlling signalman, opened up the possibility of a double collision. Especially on a railway where derailments were more common because of poor vehicle or track design.

In 2016, on most lines (certainly where there DOO-P is in use) we have full track circuiting, GSM-R and CSR radio, frequent signal post telephones, multiple unit working, air brakes (mostly disc braked), invariably power operated doors, continuously welded rail and advanced vehicle suspension is the norm, virtually everyone carries a mobile phone (passenger and non-passenger)

The DOO-P system itself requires there is continuous communication with the controlling signaling centre. Alarms are sent should the driver not respond to his vigilance device (potentially triggering train stopped in section signaling regulations) PA circuits can be opened to make announcements remotely.
The result of these improvements are the guard’s safety role has been diminished.

While it completely understandable that staff may feel this park of their job has de-skilled, this has been made up in part by commercial duties.
Understandably, guards wish to protect their jobs (and wages) however things tend to move in – they certainly have in other areas. For example there are far less shunters and wheeltappers. Station staff have had to accept the rise of ticket machines, internet purchase and so on, signalmen have had to accept power signaling and automatic route setting.

The railway is not a bubble and needs to provide value for money to the taxpayer (who supports the industry to the tune of billions per year) and farepayer and provide a useful public service. This is the situation the majority of employees in other industries face, unionised or not, subsidised or entirely self-funded. If businesses do not perform they cease to exist and jobs are lost.

Most people accept there is a very small possibility of a freak set of circumstances that may conspire to create more danger to the train. Unfortunately, statistics, facts and safety cases are not on the side of the retention of guards to prevent accidents.

Firstly, most guards, during their career will (thankfully) never carry out emergency protection. This only occurs in very exception circumstances when then controlling signalbox cannot protect trains.

Secondly the millions of pounds paid out in guard’s wages, would better spent on eliminating level crossings or improving station safety where statistically there is far greater chance of a fatality.

When lines are considered for reopening, or extra services are added, the staff costs are calculated. Sadly, business cases do not often add up. The result being people are forced to use less safe road transport!

It is very disingenuous of the unions to argue otherwise. They would be better of forming a working group with TOC management to formulate a commercial case to retain guards based on enhancing the customer experience or monetising their role more.

In other words, in monetary terms, providing guards does not offer good value for money/greater safety on today’s railway, in fact may even diminish it in an overall context. They may have more of a commercial case taking on other roles.

At the very best the safety/performance gain is very marginal, easily countered by enhanced DOO as a result of providing pass-com communication to controllers as well as all staff (safety critical or not) could carry panic alarms with GPS co-ordinates or mobile triangulation. Dwell times tend to be increased with guard operation, and the need for guards to operate doors takes them away from commercial duties.

It is a great shame the unions choose to see railway management as people they should fight rather than working toward an innovative solution where employment and wages can be maintained. The sad reality Is many guard’s jobs have gone, and will continue to go in the march to modernise, just as it has with other grades. People need to have a plan B rather than using the catch-all of ‘safety’, which under closer examination holds little water and the public are becoming increasingly sceptical of.

 

[BestWestern]

Guards most certainly do not 'diminish' safety - ask the Driver currently being prosecuted for a 'trap & drag' at Hayes if he'd like to relive that day with a Guard in charge of his train. Ask the passenger concerned the same question. Or the passenger who lost a limb at West Wickham (where, incidentally, the incident occurred even with two Drivers in the cab).

There are many different views on the subject of course, but 'guards make the railway less safe' is not a point of view; it's just plain bullsh*t.

 

[455driver]

There are many different views on the subject of course, but 'guards make the railway less safe' is not a point of view; it's just plain bullsh*t.

A bit like the rest of his longwinded post! :roll:

 

[323235]

I'm sorry but it can be dressed up many ways that a guard is no longer important and in some bizarre twist that they are a hindrance to safety but ultimately it is my view that they are important.

The driver and guard can equally assist each others in the event of an emergency and a guard prevents the driver from being overloaded with duties - one person opening and shutting doors, driving the train, checking the platform, responsible for passengers safety, responsible for monitoring the train for issues and in the event of an emergency safety responsible for a whole train load (perhaps upto 12 cars of passengers) - it is just too much to expect one person to do that however good they might be and they shouldn't have to.

 

[TUC]

Why is it that the airline industry and its staff appears to find no contradiction between their on-flight staff having primarily a safety responsibility but also an important customer service role, but the rail industry and its staff tie themselves in knots about it?

 

[the sniper]

Why is it that the airline industry and its staff appears to find no contradiction between their on-flight staff having primarily a safety responsibility but also an important customer service role, but the rail industry and its staff tie themselves in knots about it?

I don't see why people are making an issue of this. This isn't some special doctrine, it's just a practical reality. Like dquebec and BestWestern have pointed out, it's just that there are scenarios where 'customers' aren't going to be happy with the 'service' they've received because you'll have to do something as part of your duty to comply with the rules which won't allow you to be at a customer's beck and call. A lot of 'customers' don't give a crap if you've got to observe the train out of a platform as a Guard or platform staff in the best interests of safety and rule compliance, by not focusing on them and dealing with their problem as quickly as they'd like you're delivering bad 'customer service'. It's drummed into trainees in various grades that 'safety is the priority' so that in scenarios like this there's no doubt where your priority should be, as it's very easy to focus on the customer who's giving you grief right there and then because you're not doing what they want.

If I told my Conductor manager that 'I was on the train to provide customer service', they'd immediately enquire what I meant by that and would tell me that my priority should be the safe working of the train. This is mainly because there are some people who are great at 'customer service', but are not so good at adhering to the rules, as they lose focus of what their role is primarily about, the safe operation of trains rather than appeasing customers.

Basically I think the issue in this thread is the different interpretations of this 'mantra' and its actual intention. Context is key.

 

[ComUtoR]

Why is it that the airline industry and its staff appears to find no contradiction between their on-flight staff having primarily a safety responsibility but also an important customer service role, but the rail industry and its staff tie themselves in knots about it?

What is the ratio between staff/crew and passengers ?

 

[craigybagel]

What is the ratio between staff/crew and passengers ?

1 member of cabin crew per 50 passenger seats is the industry standard, and law in many countries.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is a great shame the unions choose to see railway management as people they should fight rather than working toward an innovative solution where employment and wages can be maintained.

Alex Hynes, is that you?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for "customer service" versus "safety", and how getting rid of guards will "improve the customer experience", I still don't understand why this is an either/or situation.

If the TOCs really cared about "visibility" and the "customer experience" they would, of course, have non-revenue guards and ticket collectors on the trains. But that would cost money, and what would the shareholders say?

 

[ComUtoR]

1 member of cabin crew per 50 passenger seats is the industry standard, and law in many countries.

Many thanks craigybagel.

So if we take the airline industry as the model how many on-board staff will a typical service have.

 

[gtr driver]

Why is it that the airline industry and its staff appears to find no contradiction between their on-flight staff having primarily a safety responsibility but also an important customer service role, but the rail industry and its staff tie themselves in knots about it?

Perhaps because no one is trying to make even short haul flights pilot only operation, even though automation is more widely used to fly the plane and the chances of anything untoward happening quite slim.

 

[highdyke]

I'm sorry but it can be dressed up many ways that a guard is no longer important and in some bizarre twist that they are a hindrance to safety but ultimately it is my view that they are important.

The driver and guard do not work alone in maintaining safety on the railways. There are many other staff that can and do assist during incidents from station staff to mobile ops managers. The railway rule book requires any staff (on or off duty) that are onboard trains to assist.

More to the point railways are a very controlled environment, signallers are in charge of safety of the line. Conversely, the bus industry has one person in charge of boarding, fare collection, driving, on roads that for the most part do not have controllers. Although like the railways do have a service controller to assist during incidents. Even so, the bus industry has a very similar level of passenger safety to rail.

Few guards on this forum can post a situation where they have become involved in full train protection, because it is a very rare occurrence. This is why DOO-P works in the heavily trafficked London and the SE, with little or no degradation in safety standards.

The situation for guards is only going to become more acute in the years ahead as track circuit block signalling/ERTMS expands. We've already got GSM-R radio.

We could potentially also have a situation in a few years where fully autonomous buses and cars threaten branch and secondary lines with an on demand door-door service.

By that time, for the public, the debate would have moved on. If the railways are not providing an effective customer service, deep questions will be asked about their viability in areas where congestion is not such an issue. Endless debates over who will operate the doors are going to make the railway increasingly look a laughing stock.

 

[gtr driver]

The driver and guard do not work alone in maintaining safety on the railways. There are many other staff that can and do assist during incidents from station staff to mobile ops managers. The railway rule book requires any staff (on or off duty) that are onboard trains to assist.

More to the point railways are a very controlled environment, signallers are in charge of safety of the line. Conversely, the bus industry has one person in charge of boarding, fare collection, driving, on roads that for the most part do not have controllers. Although like the railways do have a service controller to assist during incidents. Even so, the bus industry has a very similar level of passenger safety to rail.

Few guards on this forum can post a situation where they have become involved in full train protection, because it is a very rare accordance. This is why DOO-P works in the heavily trafficked London and the SE, with little or no degradation in safety standards.

The situation for guards is only going to become more acute in the years ahead as track circuit black signalling/ERTMS expands. We've already got GSM-R radio.

We could potentially also have a situation in a few years where fully autonomous buses and cars threaten branch and secondary lines with an on demand door-door service.

By that time, for the public, the debate would have moved on. If the railways are not providing an effective customer service, deep questions will be asked about their viability in areas where congestion is not such an issue. Endless debates over who will operate the doors are going to make the railway increasingly look a laughing stock.

As a DOO driver in the heavily trafficked London area, might I respectfully suggest that you do not possess the same perception or comprehension of risk as I do? I can assure you there are situations daily, if not on every trip, that make me feel extremely uncomfortable about operating doors and moving off from platforms with no one else looking out. Not to mention that I have no idea as to what is going on inside the train. And forget the bus comparison. A London bus generally has one door in and one out. I've got up to 20 to monitor in often less than ideal conditions, as well as somewhat more than one bus load of passengers to think about. GSMR and all the rest of it is no comfort if I get stuck between stations and they start to let themselves out on to electrified lines. In London a bus never leaves areas where passengers can safely walk.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Conversely, the bus industry has one person in charge of boarding, fare collection, driving, on roads that for the most part do not have controllers.

Firstly, comparing buses and trains is comparing apples and pears. The furthest door on a provincial bus is about two feet from the driver; on a London bus it may be as much as 20 feet away. Besides which, in London, there is a second person on board buses with an open platform whose only job is to monitor usage of that platform because the operator accepts the driver cannot safely do it alone.

On a 12-coach train the furthest door from the driver will be 520 feet away.

So not only is your comparison worthless, it is also factually inaccurate.

Still, what was that you were saying about DOO being brilliant?

 

[455driver]

Many thanks craigybagel.

So if we take the airline industry as the model how many on-board staff will a typical service have.

Lets say 70 seats and 30 standing per coach (quite easy on London suburban stuff) so 2 customer service staff per coach.
Cant see the TOCs going for that somehow!

 

[BestWestern]

A bus operates on a public highway where it is fully accessible at all times the plethora of emergency services constantly within easy reach. Any member of the public is capable of assisting in an emergency situation, identifying the nature of the problem and summoning help. That does not translate to a rail accident somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

As for 'autonomous cars' threatening railway lines; I think that sort of ends the conversation, really...

 

[455driver]

The driver and guard do not work alone in maintaining safety on the railways. There are many other staff that can and do assist during incidents from station staff to mobile ops managers. The railway rule book requires any staff (on or off duty) that are onboard trains to assist.

what about if the incident takes place miles from the nearest station?
So you are saying that the rule book requires me to assist even when I have been on a night out and had 10 pints does it?
Can you point me to where it says that please!
OH I know about the bit where staff travelling pass are requested to assist (like we need to be told that)!

More to the point railways are a very controlled environment, signallers are in charge of safety of the line. Conversely, the bus industry has one person in charge of boarding, fare collection, driving, on roads that for the most part do not have controllers. Although like the railways do have a service controller to assist during incidents. Even so, the bus industry has a very similar level of passenger safety to rail.

Apples and oranges as if you didn't know that!
When it goes wrong out on the line how many people are actually on site and available to assist?
The bus industry can send staff out in a van quite quickly because the area covered by the buses is relatively small compared to the area covered by a railstaff depot!

Few guards on this forum can post a situation where they have become involved in full train protection, because it is a very rare occurrence. This is why DOO-P works in the heavily trafficked London and the SE, with little or no degradation in safety standards.

But it still happens, just because it is rare doesnt mean that it doesn't happen ever!

The situation for guards is only going to become more acute in the years ahead as track circuit block signalling/ERTMS expands. We've already got GSM-R radio.

That wont hel deal with the situation will it!
When was the last time a GSM-R radio or a track circuit helped deal with an on train emergency?

We could potentially also have a situation in a few years where fully autonomous buses and cars threaten branch and secondary lines with an on demand door-door service.

Yeah, of course we will!

By that time, for the public, the debate would have moved on. If the railways are not providing an effective customer service, deep questions will be asked about their viability in areas where congestion is not such an issue. Endless debates over who will operate the doors are going to make the railway increasingly look a laughing stock.

It isn't just about the doors, its about the whole safety critical situation! :roll:

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The driver and guard do not work alone in maintaining safety on the railways. There are many other staff that can and do assist during incidents from station staff to mobile ops managers. The railway rule book requires any staff (on or off duty) that are onboard trains to assist.

I would also like to know where that is stated in the rule book. I was recently chastised for attempting to assist on a train service while off duty and having consumed a *ahem* fruit juice or two. I was however praised for offering, and by trying to do the right thing, but I could not be considered capable of assisting. Had an emergency situation arisen, I could have been a hinderance or even contributed to the situation. If the rule book states otherwise, then I can get that struck off my record, but the implications would be far reaching!

On duty I am expected to put myself forward and assist as required, that is completely different.

 

[BestWestern]

A Guard can request assistance, firstly from any other staff available, and then from anybody he deems to be a 'competent person'. In the case of the latter, priority would tend to be towards people in uniform who are easily identifiable when given a role to carry out, but it is down to the Guard to use their judgement as to who is appropriate. I agree that there is no requirement for off duty staff to do anything, though of course most of us would offer assistance if we were able to.

 

[FordFocus]

Few guards on this forum can post a situation where they have become involved in full train protection, because it is a very rare occurrence. This is why DOO-P works in the heavily trafficked London and the SE, with little or no degradation in safety standards.

The only time I've heard of a guard doing full protection assistance was when a train hit a tree in a rural area and the ever useful NRN wasn't working. Driver too shaken to move, guard ran off with dets and flags and stopped a train. This was just after BR disappeared.

I've never heard of a driver carry out full protection, so each to their own stories!

DOO-P has issues when disruption happens. Drivers can't get information to passengers because they are dealing with something with a higher priority such as the signaller or fixing a fault. Passengers don't like been left in the dark for more than a few minutes, lack of announcements by drivers is a constant trend on twitter. Many times as a driver the guard has given me prior warning to disruption because they've received information on their company phone and advised passengers before we've stopped.

The situation for guards is only going to become more acute in the years ahead as track circuit block signalling/ERTMS expands. We've already got GSM-R radio.

ERTMS is decades away from many lines, some AB resignalling schemes keep getting pushed back, NR is ever a shrinking pot of money that they've now got to sell off property. The lines that are getting ERTMS (ECML South) are already DOO for commuter trains.

ASLEF and RMT have stated no extension to DOO will be agreed so it's a non starter. Drivers are becoming increasingly uneasy over the years of existing DOO schemes because the technology of door interlock is failing them and there seems to be a stream of court cases with passengers falling between the train and platform with guards and drivers taking to the stand despite one with the complete backing of their TOC!

By that time, for the public, the debate would have moved on. If the railways are not providing an effective customer service, deep questions will be asked about their viability in areas where congestion is not such an issue. Endless debates over who will operate the doors are going to make the railway increasingly look a laughing stock.

The railways can provided effective customer service, it's the lack of resources, franchise restrictions and other reasons. Take the Northern franchise, brought in 250 STM subcontractors on zero hour contracts. Constant complaints over the years because guards can't get through trains quick enough because of lack of door control panels inside of DMUs so they queued at their destination to buy tickets with STMs attitude to passengers been questionable..... Only last year they decided to introduce Northern trained RPAs onto trains to assist customers and sell tickets at peak times so the situation has improved. They had 11 years to sort this out.

Just because guards operate doors does not means it automatically means poor customer service. As a DOO driver, guards are an important asset.

 

[ComUtoR]

Lets say 70 seats and 30 standing per coach (quite easy on London suburban stuff) so 2 customer service staff per coach.
Cant see the TOCs going for that somehow!

But if the airline industry manage to employ that level of staff then the railways is no different. TOCs have to offer the same value for money and they need to accept that level of customer service and safety responsibility. After all, if the airlines can do it then so should we.

I think there would be a significant rise in ticket prices and we may have to charge an electricity surcharge. We could also make people turn up 2hrs before their train and book in. That way we can manage the numbers and ensure that everyone gets a seat and that.....

 

[Carlisle]

ASLEF and RMT have stated no extension to DOO will be agreed so it's a non starter. .

Can you name one successful /profitable industry/company where management basically roll over and accept all the unions demands as your post seems to suggest they should here , cos I can't think of one