DOO in Scotland and Wales

[woodmally]

Appologies if this needs to go in another place ie one of the existing DOO threads. However its a genuine question.

The RMT keep referencing how they succeded in stopping DOO in Scotland and Wales. I am intrigued to know if this is a) factually correct or its just some spin done by the RMT.

If it is I would like to know b) How was it achieved? given that in England DOO is written into the franchise agreements which is why there is a stumbling block in the negotiations.

I'd be interested to know.

 

[GusB]

Trains in the Glasgow area run as driver-only, but should have a ticket inspector on board. I'm going purely from memory here, but they wanted the new E&G trains to run on a similar basis, and there was a bit of a stooshie. The result was that the new trains will be driver open, guard close. I can't speak for Wales.

 

[gareth950]

The only place that there is a chance of DOO ending up in Wales would be on the Valley lines that will be tram-train operated from Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil into Cardiff.
Otherwise the Welsh Govt came out early on last September and guaranteed a guard on every train in Wales.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The only place that there is a chance of DOO ending up in Wales would be on the Valley lines that will be tram-train operated from Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil into Cardiff.
Otherwise the Welsh Govt came out early on last September and guaranteed a guard on every train in Wales.

I think it says "second person" on every train in Wales in the press release.
Quite why the WG thought it needed a union agreement to run the railway down to individual staffing levels (before letting a contract) beats me.
And does "Wales" cover W&B routes in England, for which the DfT retains ultimate control?

As far as I can see the agreements are only with Scotrail and Wales & Borders.
The cross-border services by Virgin/LNER, XC, TPE, GWR etc are not involved (though none of these have DOO plans).

 

[craigybagel]

Appologies if this needs to go in another place ie one of the existing DOO threads. However its a genuine question.

The RMT keep referencing how they succeded in stopping DOO in Scotland and Wales. I am intrigued to know if this is a) factually correct or its just some spin done by the RMT.

If it is I would like to know b) How was it achieved? given that in England DOO is written into the franchise agreements which is why there is a stumbling block in the negotiations.

I'd be interested to know.

RMT are correct to say that they had a success with Scotrail. The original plan for the 385s was for them to run DOO on all routes except Edinburgh-Glasgow, and even there the second person would have no operational control, it would effectively be DCO. After RMT took action, Scotrail backed down and agreed that on routes that currently have guards, when the 385s are introduced they will keep their guards - using the driver open and guard close system.

As for Wales, that remains to be seen. The Welsh government promised a safety critical guard on all heavy rail services - and given the amount of new franchises that have included DOO provisions that has to be seen as a success for RMT as well. The question now is what will happen to the tram-train services.

 

[woodmally]

Thank you for those that responded its really interesting. However that brings up another question. I could be wrong here but Abelio runs Scotrail services. I think they are the same company that runs Northern. Again forgive me if I'm wrong. So why can they scrap DOO in Scotland. Northern cant in England as its part of the franchise agreement. Are franchise agreements different in England.

 

[craigybagel]

Thank you for those that responded its really interesting. However that brings up another question. I could be wrong here but Abelio runs Scotrail services. I think they are the same company that runs Northern. Again forgive me if I'm wrong. So why can they scrap DOO in Scotland. Northern cant in England as its part of the franchise agreement. Are franchise agreements different in England.

That's exactly it. The Department for Transport (DFT) sets the requirements for all the franchises in England, and they included a requirement that 50% of milage of all Northern services have to be capable of being run DOO - leaving Northern stuck between the RMT on one side who will never agree to it and the DFT on the other who won't let them back down from it. In Scotland and in Wales the devolved governments have much more say in the running of the franchises and they've got bigger fish to fry then starting a head on fight with the unions over an issue that to many isn't worth fighting over.

Also, whilst Abellio used to run Northern, it is now run by Arriva. However the situation is still the same - they don't have the power to drop plans to introduce DOO without being in breach of their contact.

 

[Highlandspring]

It took a significant amount of industrial action by ScotRail conductors to get the agreement over DOO on 385s. Notably similar action a few years previously over the extension of the DOO are on the opening of the Airdrie Bathgate line failed to prevent it.

 

[gareth950]

There's also been a political edge to it in Wales. Carwyn Jones has repeatedly pointed out the fact that there is no industrual action in Wales over the role of guards compared to England, and that Welsh government are working with the unions and not against them.

 

[tbtc]

Trains in the Glasgow area run as driver-only, but should have a ticket inspector on board. I'm going purely from memory here, but they wanted the new E&G trains to run on a similar basis, and there was a bit of a stooshie. The result was that the new trains will be driver open, guard close. I can't speak for Wales.

That's my understanding too.

There's no reason why DOO has to mean "no Guard on board" - it only refers to "operation" - i.e. who is controlling things - the driver can press a button to open doors when the train arrives at a station and close them when the train is ready to leave regardless of whether there is a second crew member on board.

The Unions are obviously happy for passengers to believe that "DOO" means the same as "no Guard" (rather than the reality of "there'll be a Guard, but they won't be responsible for safety critical things like operating the doors).

The problem is that we seem to get into a position that is agreed but operational reasons mean the goalposts move - e.g. it was apparently fine for DOO on Glasgow - Drumgelloch and Guard operation on Bathgate - Edinburgh, but then the line between Drumgelloch and Bathgate opened and both sides saw an opportunity to force their favoured situation on the other half of the line... there's been no Guards required on London - Oxford trains for some time IIRC but now the Unions are using the introduction of 800/801s as justification to go back to having a safety critical guard on every service... meanwhile all new trains are built with an eye on the future so have settings capable of permitting DOO but that doesn't mean removing the Guards - however Unions obviously get nervous about the new trains having that capability even if the TOC isn't trying to remove the Guard responsibilities).

Maybe we'll have the same argument soon at Rotherham (local trains require Guards to operate the doors, but the Supertram extension will see tram drivers pushing all of the buttons, so Rotherham station will see half of its service run by DOO trams). Great...

 

[74A]

Thank you for those that responded its really interesting. However that brings up another question. I could be wrong here but Abelio runs Scotrail services. I think they are the same company that runs Northern. Again forgive me if I'm wrong. So why can they scrap DOO in Scotland. Northern cant in England as its part of the franchise agreement. Are franchise agreements different in England.

In Scotland the Scottish government decides what to spend money on. They have decided that they do not want the operational benefits of DOO and money saving in order to avoid the disruption caused by strikes. In England the UK government has decided it does want the operational benefits and money saving from DOO and is willing to put up with the disruption caused by strikes.

It would be interesting if someone did a FOI request to find out how much more money the Scottish government had to pay to keep guards. That would give us a benchmark to see what potential costs savings there are with DOO.

 

[Robertj21a]

The only place that there is a chance of DOO ending up in Wales would be on the Valley lines that will be tram-train operated from Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil into Cardiff.
Otherwise the Welsh Govt came out early on last September and guaranteed a guard on every train in Wales.

I certainly see no justification whatsoever for a tram to run as anything other than as DOO.

 

[gareth950]

I certainly see no justification whatsoever for a tram to run as anything other than as DOO.

It won't be a tram though. It will be tram-trains running on HR infrastructure to HR regulations throughout, bar the 300 metres on-street in Cardiff Bay.

 

[74A]

I certainly see no justification whatsoever for a tram to run as anything other than as DOO.

So the RMT don't go on strike

 

[Carlisle]

It won't be a tram though. It will be tram-trains running on HR infrastructure to HR regulations throughout, bar the 300 metres on-street in Cardiff Bay.

As the T&W metro has done successfully for at least 16 years already just to give one of several possible examples Europe wide

 

[Robertj21a]

It won't be a tram though. It will be tram-trains running on HR infrastructure to HR regulations throughout, bar the 300 metres on-street in Cardiff Bay.

Not sure what HR infrastructure has to do with it. To most people it will be a tram - that certainly should be DOO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure what HR infrastructure has to do with it. To most people it will be a tram - that certainly should be DOO.

Conductors are a good idea but should even if safety trained only do revenue, not doors.

 

[156478]

Trains in the Glasgow area run as driver-only, but should have a ticket inspector on board. I'm going purely from memory here, but they wanted the new E&G trains to run on a similar basis, and there was a bit of a stooshie. The result was that the new trains will be driver open, guard close. I can't speak for Wales.

Good emphasis on "should" there. Unfortunately there have been plenty of trains without Ticket Examiners on board and it's backfired with a fair few interesting "incidents" as a result over the years. This is one of the downsides of DCO/DOO.

 

[Scotrail84]

I certainly see no justification whatsoever for a tram to run as anything other than as DOO.

Edinburgh trams have conductors on every tram

 

[Scotrail84]

It took a significant amount of industrial action by ScotRail conductors to get the agreement over DOO on 385s. Notably similar action a few years previously over the extension of the DOO are on the opening of the Airdrie Bathgate line failed to prevent it.

That could have succeeded with better planning from the RMT to be fair.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Edinburgh trams have conductors on every tram

Edinburgh's conductors are bizarre in the extreme. I understand the model of "pay the conductor on board" as a viable method of doing ticketing, but what's the point when ticketing is by TVM?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Not sure what HR infrastructure has to do with it. To most people it will be a tram - that certainly should be DOO.

I doubt that vehicles certified to operate on "heavy rail", and therefore mix with substantially built trains, will actually look all that much like plain street trams. It's also worth noting that the tram-train concept has yet to prove itself as fully able to satisfy rail safety regulations. The South Yorkshire operation is, to all intents and purposes, an experiment to try and provide such proof: it has been in progress for many years already and has still to demonstrate success. And it is not intended to genuinely mix with heavy rail traffic. The suggestion that the proposed South Wales tram-trains are really just plain trams and therefore should operate under DOO is simply an opinion, not fact.

 

[Scotrail84]

Edinburgh's conductors are bizarre in the extreme. I understand the model of "pay the conductor on board" as a viable method of doing ticketing, but what's the point when ticketing is by TVM?

You can't pay the Conductor on board unless theres been an issue with the TVM's at the stop you joined, they check tickets and hand out £10 penalty fares if you knowingly board without a ticket and the machines are in full working order, every tram stop has at least 2 TVM's that accept both cash and cards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can't pay the Conductor on board unless theres been an issue with the TVM's at the stop you joined, they check tickets and hand out £10 penalty fares if you knowingly board without a ticket and the machines are in full working order, every tram stop has at least 2 TVM's that accept both cash and cards.

Why on earth they went for such a bizarre, passenger unfriendly and wasteful setup I have no idea, the conductors, if they wanted to have them, could simply have flogged tickets. Or don't have them.

 

[yorkie]

Edinburgh trams have conductors on every tram

True, but having a conductor/ticket examiner on a train/tram does not mean the service is not DOO.

The electric services in the Glasgow area are all Driver Only Operated but are diagrammed to have a ticket examiner on board.

(And having a Guard does not necessarily mean that there is anyone checking tickets on the train e.g. SWR's inner suburban guards tend to be non-commercial)

 

[Robertj21a]

I doubt that vehicles certified to operate on "heavy rail", and therefore mix with substantially built trains, will actually look all that much like plain street trams. It's also worth noting that the tram-train concept has yet to prove itself as fully able to satisfy rail safety regulations. The South Yorkshire operation is, to all intents and purposes, an experiment to try and provide such proof: it has been in progress for many years already and has still to demonstrate success. And it is not intended to genuinely mix with heavy rail traffic. The suggestion that the proposed South Wales tram-trains are really just plain trams and therefore should operate under DOO is simply an opinion, not fact.

I went on tram-trains in Germany more than 20 years ago (Karlsruhe) and here we are in the UK still trying to get them to work !

 

[gareth950]

I doubt that vehicles certified to operate on "heavy rail", and therefore mix with substantially built trains, will actually look all that much like plain street trams. It's also worth noting that the tram-train concept has yet to prove itself as fully able to satisfy rail safety regulations. The South Yorkshire operation is, to all intents and purposes, an experiment to try and provide such proof: it has been in progress for many years already and has still to demonstrate success. And it is not intended to genuinely mix with heavy rail traffic. The suggestion that the proposed South Wales tram-trains are really just plain trams and therefore should operate under DOO is simply an opinion, not fact.

The Valleys tram-trains are very much intended to mix with heavy rail traffic, they will be mixing with all the various HR trains between Ninian Park and Queen St, around Canton depot and into & through Cardiff Central.

 

[380101]

It took a significant amount of industrial action by ScotRail conductors to get the agreement over DOO on 385s.

It was only eventually resolved when ASLEF hinted at industrial action if the Conductors didn't get to keep control of the platform train interface and door closing. RMT were happily on the way to agreeing to plans to take the doors off the conductors aslong as the conductors had to be on the trains at all times for them to run in service.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

My understanding of Scotrail is that it was down to Abellio the franchisee to decide whether or not to implement DOO on the new rolling stock, and as suggested above they decided not to pursue it at this moment in time due to the industrial action and so on. However driver open, guard close could be argued to be one of the precursors to DOO anyway like on Southern Rail so they are just biding their time. The railway is the railway and thankfully (or maybe unthankfully for some) change takes a long time.

 

[68000]

It should be noted that the vast majority of current electric train services in Scotland are operated as DOO with ticket examiner on board and have been operating that way for decades. The extension of DOO to the new electric services is what ScotRail / Transport Scotland baulked at