Individuals may not be open minded, but there is quite a spectrum of views (from "everything should be DOO without OBS", to my view of "DOO is justified in some cases but not others, and in some cases with and in others without OBS", onto "there should never be DOO anywhere") and bringing wider information to it is of great benefit in my view even if not everyone will necessarily agree with it.
I'll say it in pinchpoints.
The leasing company will not yet do the deal with CAF because at this moment in time there are some issues, but not major issues. This has knocked back the passenger service launch date and risks further chaos in any new timetable changes next May. (Northern management take note)
Mechanically there is no major mechanical issues with either type of units. But the software is constantly having to be updated. There has been software issues with coupled units not talking to each other.
The ADOS system although very good has a few issues to be sorted. Many of 'Networkrails' figures for platform lengths have been proved wrong, and every platform has had to be measured again.
The cameras will only come on when the screen is touched. They can also be viewed from the rear cab which in some instances would be a massive bonus. Unlike some units the cameras switch off at 13MPH and not when the train takes power. This could alarm ASLEF a little because at Leeds 13MPH is the end of the platforms. If the cameras are on and a incident occurs as the train is pulling away, it could potentially lead to questions like, why did you not notice it. But overall from someone like myself who takes PTI seriously, the fact that they are on to 13MPH settles some doubts.
The ADOS system is set up using the trains headcode. The units have to be set up whilst in multiple to every station they will call at. At the moment it is being set up for the Barrow to Manchester route, and Blackpool to Manchester Airport. If the system should fail though, the consequences are a little unknown. It also raises questions as to what would happen should a train be given additional calls whilst on route. There is also a little uncertainty should a train over shoot a platform. Of course these issues are mostly whilst in multi, and much testing is yet to be completed.
These are just some of the teething issues at the moment, but to me it indicates a line of thinking I and a few others here have adapted. Give the door operation to the driver, these units have the software and tools to keep it safe. But keep the second man safety critical for those occasions, (and occasions will come about) where a second person might need to take over door operation to keep the service running.
At the moment this way of thinking does not seem to have been considered, but I suspect it will when the full picture emerges. I doubt any guard would disagree with this line, and passengers would end up with a lot less cancellations.
) - perhaps we will need to come up with a better acronym !!
