Airdrie-Bathgate: Bob Crowe's being idiotic again

[yorkie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8393061.stm

The problem is that Bob Crowe and gang do not like trains operated by a driver, with a revenue staff member checking tickets.

Instead, they want the member of staff who checks tickets, to also operate the doors. There is no real logic behind their claims.

Bizarrely, they claim that it is "safer" for the member of staff checking tickets to have to do the doors. There is no real justification for this. Indeed, I felt very safe on the Glasgow suburban trains whenever I have travelled on them, because you know there is a member of staff patrolling the train at all times and they do not have to get distracted with doors and they do not hide in cabs (they may not be allowed in them? I'm not sure?).

The RMT will surely not have any "public support" over this issue! Sadly they are very good at getting headline-writers to get the wrong end of the stick!

I'm no fan of driver only trains, but the trains in the Glasgow area all have 2 members of staff present, and are very safe indeed. "Safety fears," he claims? absurd!

 

[A60K]

I agree - on some things Bob Crow does get it right, but more often than not I'm in disagreement with him.

Given the choice as a passenger I would prefer the SPT arrangement of a driver plus revenue staff member going up and down the train.

With slam door stock there was a better reason for a guard to be at the back of the train, but I'm perfectly happy with the driver operating the doors and a second member of staff patrolling the train.

I prefer both to pure DOO though.

 

[Mojo]

In my opinion the previous Strathclyde Manning Agreement was the best of both worlds, the advantages such as speed and safety requirements of DOO, but the knowledge that there is someone else on board.

 

[royaloak]

What belligerent Bob is on about is keeping 2 safety critical staff on the train instead of just 1 (the driver).
If on an OPO train the driver is incapacitated who takes charge of the situation, the answer is nobody, because the ticket checkers are NOT trained in emergency procedures, where-as if the train dual crewed (driver and guard) the guard would take over as they ARE trained in emergency situations.
This is purely about saving money, as the ticket checkers will be on a lot less than a guard would be.
On this subject I am in full agreement with Bob.

 

[O L Leigh]

On a DOO train the driver does everything. This means that if protection of the line is required or a failed train requires assistance, the driver leaves the train to walk down the line leaving the train unstaffed. Revenue can be helpful when it comes to "crowd control", but they are not passed for PTS or any of the rules pertaining to train operation. Any other competent person could do "crowd control", such as a police officer or some other similar person.

However, revenue are not guards. They cannot communicate with the signaller, leave the train, carry out protection of the line or any of the other aspects of the guard's job. The guard has many safety responsibilities in addition to just controlling the doors which, on DOO, falls to the driver.

Provided that everything runs as it should, DOO is perfectly safe. However, there are times when it might not be. This might not make much sense to those of you outside the industry looking in, but when you're out there on your own in the peak with an 8 or 12 car train rammed to the rafters with hundreds of passengers, you don't half feel exposed. Many is the time when I've run up to town with my fingers crossed and breathed a huge sigh of relief when I've arrived.

The man may be a bit of a caricature, but on this topic he talks sense. DOO is to be resisted.

**EDIT**

Yorkie: The safety issue is not to do with reassuring the punters that they're not going to get a leathering off the hard nut sitting in the next bay over. It's to do with the safety of the train and the passengers as outlined above.

O L Leigh

 

[87015]

Its a nonsense to claim DOO is unsafe and work of the devil when he's agreed it elsewhere :roll:

 

[O L Leigh]

You work DOO...? Or are you merely highlighting a possible inconsistency in the utterances of the RMT General Secretary?

O L Leigh

 

[87015]

You work DOO...? Or are you merely highlighting a possible inconsistency in the utterances of the RMT General Secretary?

O L Leigh

the latter.

 

[O L Leigh]

Fair enough.

I just wanted to be sure precisely which bit you were critiquing before I flew off the handle. Thankfully the hissy-fit that was brewing is not now required.

Carry on.

O L Leigh

 

[CosherB]

I saw Bob Crowe on 'Have I Got News for You' - what a ****! He's a union dinosaur leftover from the 1970s.

I have never understood the logic of guard-operated doors. We have 323s on our local line; Manchester - Crewe. Typically the train stops in the station, and there is a considerable delay (almost 2 minutes one day last week) before the doors are enabled for opening. What's happened of course is that thy guard was at one end of the train selling a ticket, had to complete the transaction, then make his way through the train to the point where he can enable the doors to be opened.

Meanwhile, as we stood in the rain waiting to get on, and a bunch of passsengers stand in the aisles waiting to get off, the driver is sitting in his cab doing nothing.

You couldn't make it up! Oh, hang on. The railways did!

 

[Aictos]

O L Leigh, I quite agree with your posts above and can add my own experiences to why guards on services will always be better then DOO or similar.

I caught the 0619 Stevenage to Peterborough service a few months ago after work which is a 91 hauled Mk4 set, we got to St Neots and had a emergency brake application made. After the brakes came off, we continued on our way, anyway we managed to get just outside Huntingdon when all the power went.

The guard made announcements to let passengers know what was happening and I assisted being the good un I am by assisting the catering crew by handing out refreshments to the passengers.

There was very little else I could do at the time.

Eventually the Thunderbird arrived and as the set was declared a total failure, hauled it to Peterborough where the service terminated, arriving at 0930 - The booked arrival time is 0650!

Now its all very well for a driver of a FCC service consisting of a single 313/317/319/321/365/377 to cope with any issues but if my service was a failed 6, 8 or 12 car set 313/319/321/365 then any passengers would need to hope that the driver makes enough announcements to keep them informed.

I for one would rather prefer a guard to that of DOO, which is why I can only agree with the RMT's position on it.

 

[Metroland]

To put the cat among the pigeons, I agree with the opening poster its just another attempt by Bob Crow to make the railway as expensive as possible - he's also objecting to DOO on the Javelin services.

DOO is actually (not withstanding the fair point about the driver having company with nutters on the train) far safer. Obviously Bob is completely oblivious how the real railway works.

Little history lesson.

The Guard is on board to *guard* the train. In old style absolute block signalling, its his job to protect the train by placing full detonator protection in an emergency. The driver walks forward. The reason is simply a hang over from history, when rear end collisions were possible if signalmen forgot trains were in section.

One requirement of DOO, is continuous track circuiting, you also have continuous secure radio communication. Any trains that are long time in section, have full protection of the signalling system which simply didn't exist with absolute block, when trains used to (and still do in those areas) disappear into the black hole between signal boxes. In the days before mobile phones, wasn't it fun working out what happened to trains long time in section! The normal course of events is.was to caution the next train through.

With new lines, which are continuously track circuited and have radio communication there is simply no requirement to have guards - their role is just revenue protection.

To my knowledge no train accident has occurred as the result of DOO, but many did with absolute block - at least before the introduction of Welwyn control.

The reality is, revenue protection staff would more than likely be on trains in any case and DOO operation is present on most suburban services all over the country and works perfectly safely.

Bob Crow is talking out of his arse.

 

[O L Leigh]

This isn't a question of whether or not an accident has happened or is likely to happen as a consequence of DOO. There are obvious safety benefits to having a second member of staff on-board who is fully conversant with the rules and passed as safety critical to assist with out-of-course situations. To give just one example, a train evac would be much quicker and safer with two members of staff compared to just one.

I also dispute your confident claim that revenue would likely be on the trains. I would estimate that revenue ride significantly less than 10% of the services I drive. I know that tomorrow I shall be on my own on a very heavily loaded service and will be feeling very exposed as a result.

O L Leigh

 

[royaloak]

Do any of you work on the railway?

I do and can state quite categorically that DOO is a bad thing and should not be extended anywhere!
Why, here's a few examples-
if the driver stops short at a station (does happen) the guard will check if the train is fully on the platform and not release the doors, if DOO the doors would be released with serious repercussions,
if the train fails the drivers responsibility is the safety of the train, fault finding and fixing the problem NOT keeping the passengers informed,
what if the driver is taken ill, who will take charge then!
There are many more reasons why Bob is right on this so please look at the overall picture before commenting.
All the TOC is interested in is saving money,

 

[Metroland]

But in the end its all about risk, I just disagree that DOO from an operating point of view is unsafe. It is safer to have 2 members on board for a train evacuation (assuming passengers take any notice or you can make announcements) but where does it stop, have someone in every coach?

As I said, I'm not aware of any incidents as a result of DOO. Nutters on trains just result to phone calls to controlling signal boxes, and 9/10 times the boys in blue are their to meet them, even if the train has to be held outside for a couple of minutes. In fact, with CCTV, the fact you can lock doors and there are 100s of other people (usually on board) trains are just about the worse place for causing trouble, you are almost guaranteed to get caught.

I actually once stopped a major train crash because of DOO. Very briefly the the police were chasing joy riders, which ended up the car they were chancing overturning on a level crossing. Because it nipped a cable, it put down a track circuit down on the opposite running line (thinking of Hixon) I was mindful enough to ring the driver of a train on a DOO radio - he had passed the last controlled signal in front of the crossing, and was running on clear greens at 90mph. The train stopped clear of the car and several coppers - who failed to use the crossing phone - by yards.

That's the illustration of the sorts of advantages you have with modern DOO/signalling. With the old system, the train would have simply ploughed into the cars and god knows what would have happened, at the very least the people at the crossing would have been killed.

I totally appreciate how a exposed a driver can feel, but he does have the luxury of a locked door and someone continuously monitoring his progress. The same can't be said for bus/coach and taxi drivers.

If the driver is taken ill, trains are simply cautioned through/someone sent out there. Announcements can be made from teh controlling signal centre.

 

[tbtc]

As a mere passenger, I'm not too bothered by this. There's a person who drives the train, and there's a person who checks tickets. I'm not too fussed which one has responsibility for safety, as long as one of them does.

I can see why the Union man wants to protect the role of Guard as a skilled position (responsible, necesary), and not just the equivalent of pub bouncer. However, Driver Only Operation is very different to having the driver responsible for safety (with a "revenue protection officer" instead of a guard). Easy to confuse the two to give journalists a cheap headline.

 

[Mojo]

If a train does stop short, then even with a guard on board there are many trains where either:
a. it is not possible for the guard to check the train is fully platformed anyway
b. the driver releases the doors
and in any case there are some relatively cheap safety systems in place.

 

[142094]

Quite franky I'd rather have a trainedguard as well as a driver for safety, we know how some revenue staff can be when it comes to tickets and customer service, so I wouldn't want to put my life in their hands.

 

[me123]

This is complete nonsense, and has been raging for some time now. The trains are Class 334s, which are currently not equipped for DOO. The line, with stops every two minutes in the East End of Glasgow, is not suitable for DOO considering that some trains carry over 400 passengers...

If he wants to have the benefits of two fully-trained crew members, then I would imagine that only limited extra training is needed for this. But DOO is not feasible or desirable on this route. Perhaps one day he'll realise that this isn't the right way to try and get the workers a bit more money. Let's face it, that's all he's interested in.

And I think you'll find that ticket inspectors in Scotland are already very good at telling passengers what's happening in times of disruption. I find you usually get more info from them than from the Conductors! If they're going above what's required, then that's just a testament to how well they're doing their job.

Yorkie, you must be the only English person I "know" who's actually felt safe on a Glasgow suburban train!

 

[Metroland]

Quite franky I'd rather have a trainedguard as well as a driver for safety, we know how some revenue staff can be when it comes to tickets and customer service, so I wouldn't want to put my life in their hands.

How do you mean for safety? To protect you from someone landing you a punch? Forget it, your fellow passengers are more likely to help. Most guards/drivers won't get involved and simply request the police.

 

[Mintona]

To put the cat among the pigeons, I agree with the opening poster its just another attempt by Bob Crow to make the railway as expensive as possible - he's also objecting to DOO on the Javelin services.

You say that like it's a bad thing. The 395s are driver-only dispatch but the on-board manager does everything else a guard would do, ie. competent in carrying out line protection, assist in an emergency evacuation, speak to the signalman etc. I'm not sure is this makes it DOO or not to be honest.

And whilst most guards/drivers won't get involved, that is at the direction of the company. And having someone walking through the train is a visible deterrent to any trouble-makers.

 

[313103]

I can give my perspective on this emotive issue, I work on both class 313s and 378s. Can you belive we have two different methods of working. ON the class 313 the Guard has complete control of the operation of doors, and there is no delay in opening or closing of the doors as a result.

On a class 378 the driver opens the doors and on numerous occasions trains have been delayed at stations because the driver has forgotten to release them, we have also had instances where the driver has stopped and released the doors even though he is not at a station.

The other issue and as one person as alluded to within this thread is that they would prefer DOO on the basis that if you reduce staff costs this will be passed on to the fare paying passenger, that my friend is an optical illusion any money saved will not go towards you the passenger but either to the shareholders of the company in control or central government.

It has also been mentioned that no rail accident has been caused directly by DOO that maybe correct but wasnt one of the trains involved in the terrible Ladbroke Grove incident DOO operated, and if a member of staff wasnt travelling pass in the back cab of that 165 how do do you think some of those passengers would have got out. Also despite the Guards injuries on the HST that was also involved he still carried protection of the train. Therefore carrying out an important role which we have all seemed to have lost in this money saving exercise. Without a history lesson Clapham Junction would have been a far worse incident if were not for a guard carrying out his role in protection of trains.

 

[djw1981]

Strathclyde DOO has ticket examiners who apparently can do the same as a guard inb terms of track access etc but do not operate doors. The idea being to speed up the service and allow the staff to sell tickets and deal with cuistomers ratehr than spend most of the journey operating doors.

 

[me123]

Strathclyde DOO has ticket examiners who apparently can do the same as a guard inb terms of track access etc but do not operate doors. The idea being to speed up the service and allow the staff to sell tickets and deal with cuistomers ratehr than spend most of the journey operating doors.

In theory, this is what will happen East of Airdrie. There is no reason whatsoever for guards to operate doors, which will do little more than create costs for Scotrail (in extra wages and converting the 334s/318s to allow the guards to operate doors).

 

[Helvellyn]

Well I work on SWT - only London and South Eastern TOC with a Guard on EVERY train. SWT has committed to this for this franchise. So we have the safety responsibilities of the Guard, but also an important customer service aspect too. Unfortunately, a minority of my colleagues think they get paid their £20k+ a year to ride around in back/middle cabs at all times of day, not just when passenger loadings dictate that you can't work from with the passenger saloons. In addition Guards don't do revenue duties (whereas Commercial Guards do) and therefore the good ones are out patrolling their trains, reassuring passengers, providing information and looking after the train. If only they could get door operating panels in each coach of a Class 458 so Guards could patrol those too.

I've no interest in seeing the Guard's role on SWT disappear, but I do dispair when I see some colleagues just thinking they can sit in cabs to do their job - they're the biggest advert for DOO on Suburban services!

 

[royaloak]

I actually once stopped a major train crash because of DOO. Very briefly the the police were chasing joy riders, which ended up the car they were chancing overturning on a level crossing. Because it nipped a cable, it put down a track circuit down on the opposite running line (thinking of Hixon) I was mindful enough to ring the driver of a train on a DOO radio - he had passed the last controlled signal in front of the crossing, and was running on clear greens at 90mph. The train stopped clear of the car and several coppers - who failed to use the crossing phone - by yards.

What has this got to do with DOO, this is Cab Secure Radio not DOO radio! All SWT electrics have CSR and are not DOO!

 

[Metroland]

It has also been mentioned that no rail accident has been caused directly by DOO that maybe correct but wasn't one of the trains involved in the terrible Ladbroke Grove incident DOO operated, and if a member of staff wasn't travelling pass in the back cab of that 165 how do do you think some of those passengers would have got out. Also despite the Guards injuries on the HST that was also involved he still carried protection of the train. Therefore carrying out an important role which we have all seemed to have lost in this money saving exercise. Without a history lesson Clapham Junction would have been a far worse incident if were not for a guard carrying out his role in protection of trains.

With respect, passengers don't wait to told by guards to get out, they open/smash the window and just get out. While the guard my have carried out full detonator protection at Ladbroke grove, this in order to stop trains, the reality is with so much signalling equipment destroyed and the fact the the trains stopped progressing along the VDU at workstation one in Slough IECC, the trains were being stopped anyway.

I'll have to check on the Clapham accident, as far as I know the train was running on green faulty signals and ploughed into the back of the train in Clapham common anyway. At least with DOO, at the very least you could send 'stop' to other trains, because clearly lineside signalling was unreliable.

Nevertheless, the cost of the railway is reflected through ticket prices, and expensive operating practices in the real world simply result in people switching to less safe road transport. Indeed, it was calculated at the time of Hatfield, that more people were killed as the result of the 'safety scare' restrictions imposed by Railtrack as the switched the the roads, than in the accident itself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What has this got to do with DOO, this is Cab Secure Radio not DOO radio! All SWT electrics have CSR and are not DOO!

Because at the particular location is was a DOO radio and the train was a DOO train! Until recently CSR hasn't been fitted to trains with guards, not withstanding the useless NRN, which isn't secure anyway, and controlling signal boxes can only contract driver via route control, very slowly. CSR was fitted to SWT but DOO operation was never put in because of union objections, as they had a right spat in Birmingham. They have generally either been on strike or objected to every other installation including the first on the bedpan services.

The reality is there is no quantifiable safety risk of DOO trains, its simply union scaremongering to protect jobs.

 

[thelem]

Bob Crowe is a union man and wants as many people as possible to earn as much money as possible doing as little work as possible, it's as simple as that.

Anyone got any evidence to contradict that? (opinion is not evidence)

 

[yorkie]

I also dispute your confident claim that revenue would likely be on the trains. I would estimate that revenue ride significantly less than 10% of the services I drive. I know that tomorrow I shall be on my own on a very heavily loaded service and will be feeling very exposed as a result.

I would say the claim that revenue would likely be on the trains is actually quite correct, as the policy on the Glasgow suburbans (which this will be an extension of) is that there are 2 members of staff on every train: one driver and one revenue. I do not know if they ever operate with just 1 person, it may happen, perhaps someone can confirm? but if so, it is very rare. I've done quite a few journeys up there and have never seen that happen. The theoretical once-in-a-blue-moon safety type talk that Bob Crowe is on about pales into statistical insignificance when it comes to the safety benefits of having a member of staff who is constantly walking up and down the train rather than merely sitting in the cab.

I do not agree with the type of DOO operation that you experience, I agree with you that is not right, but up in Strathclyde it is different.

If a driver + revenue is somehow unsafe, then all roads should immediately be closed as they are all very unsafe!

The line to Airdrie is already driver + revenue and is perfectly safe. It may even be 'safer' than the line from Edinburgh to Bathgate due to the higher safety standards required (someone with local knowledge may be able to confirm?). There is no reason at all to protest at the extension of the Glasgow to Airdrie line through to Bathgate and Edinburgh using efficient Class 318/322/etc EMUs rather than inefficient Class 158 DMUs, and a safer (in reality, not Bob's hypothetical dreamworld) environment.

If Bob is really concerned about safety, he should get dangerous vehicles off the roads, before he tries to get visible staff to revert to a role of hiding in back cabs :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As a mere passenger, I'm not too bothered by this. There's a person who drives the train, and there's a person who checks tickets. I'm not too fussed which one has responsibility for safety, as long as one of them does.

What is safer and better for you: a guard that sits in the back cab, like on SWT, who operates doors, or revenue staff constantly patrolling the train and not having to be concerned with opening doors? Bob thinks the former is safe and likes the idea of that, because his members can read a 'paper in the back cab. Bob dislikes the other option, which is a deterrent against bad behaviour. Which is best?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quite franky I'd rather have a trainedguard as well as a driver for safety, we know how some revenue staff can be when it comes to tickets and customer service, so I wouldn't want to put my life in their hands.

I agree that revenue staff who randomly board trains on, for example, the Farce TOCs have terrible customer service. However that isn't the case at all from what I've experienced in Strathclyde. The revenue staff stay on the trains, and are effectively like a conductor but they don't do doors. I can't say every single one of them is friendly, but I honestly don't think I encountered anyone who was unfriendly or gave poor customer service, on several trips on Daytripper tickets in the past 3 years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And whilst most guards/drivers won't get involved, that is at the direction of the company. And having someone walking through the train is a visible deterrent to any trouble-makers.

I agree totally, but Bob doesn't!

SPT - someone walking through the train constantly = visible deterrent. Bob hates that!
SWT - someone sits in the back cab reading a 'paper and does some doors = Bob loves that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In theory, this is what will happen East of Airdrie. There is no reason whatsoever for guards to operate doors, which will do little more than create costs for Scotrail (in extra wages and converting the 334s/318s to allow the guards to operate doors).

Agreed! £1.4m to convert them, and extra wages to do something the driver can do. And lost revenue as they'll not be able to sell/check tickets immediately before a station (or risk delaying the train).

Money well spent? I think not, that £1.4m could save lives if it was spent on creating alternatives to road transport by increasing rail usage, by building a new station, or increasing capacity at a junction. That would be a far better use of the money, with a far better cost:benefit ratio. Bob isn't really interested about safety!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What has this got to do with DOO, this is Cab Secure Radio not DOO radio! All SWT electrics have CSR and are not DOO!

Does Edinburgh-Bathgate have cab secure radio with the 158s? Will it be getting it with the EMUs? I suspect the answers are "No" and "Yes" respectively, therefore increasing safety standards. I don't know the answer though and I could be wrong, but in general that is the case. perhaps someone who knows the area can comment on that and confirm either way.

As I've said several times, I am against DOO where the driver is the only member of staff on the train, and where revenue staff randomly board and try to issue as many PFs as possible. I am totally opposed to that!! However the system in Strathclyde (which is like nothing in England that I'm aware of) is not like that at all. It's effectively the same as having a conductor and a driver, except the conductor doesn't have to do doors. The ticket checkers up there are not jobsworths like on FCC/FGW (allegedly), and do a good job making the trains a relatively safe environment given the areas they go through, they do not hide. There is no question of job losses here. There is no question of staff levels being reduced whatsoever. There will still be 2 members of staff on board, and I believe there should be nothing less than that.

 

[142094]

How do you mean for safety? To protect you from someone landing you a punch? Forget it, your fellow passengers are more likely to help. Most guards/drivers won't get involved and simply request the police.

Safety as in an incident or accident, I would much rather have a guard on the train who has been properly trained than revenue staff.