East-West Rail (EWR): Should they be driver only operated, or driver & guard operated?

[Edvid]

The Oxford Clarion have their say on the upcoming Oxford - Milton Keynes service:

We are sorry to announce that the 08.44 to Milton Keynes has been delayed by several months

Oxford’s new railway line to Milton Keynes has been complete for almost a year – but there’s no sign of passenger services beginning. On 20 October 2024, railway track company Network Rail officially declared the line open. Chiltern Railways and GWR were quick out of the blocks, each running

oxfordclarion.uk

We’re just waiting for a guard​

The Oxford Clarion understands, however, that industrial relations have been a major stumbling block.

45 drivers have been recruited for the new service, but no guards (aka ‘train managers’). The Government wants the line to run with ‘Driver-Controlled’ or ‘Driver-Only Operation’, where the driver releases and closes the doors at stations, and no guard is required. Introduced widely on London commuter services in the 1980s to cut running costs, it is fiercely opposed by rail unions; a recent dispute on South Western Railway lasted for over four years. Both the main unions have a position against any ‘extension’ of driver-only operation, and a new line is, of course, an extension.

An obscure Government body, the National Infrastructure & Service Transformation Authority, alluded to the dispute in a recent report. Its line on East West Rail read:

“Risk still remains over the trade union response to the mode of operation decision and how this may affect proposed time schedules to enter into service.”

Richard Allan, managing director of Chiltern Railways, confirmed this in a podcast interview:

“The final bit we need to finalise is how we’re going to operate the services. We’re talking to colleagues and to trade union partners about that. When we’ve got something to say, we'll be able to share that more widely.”

Needless to say, “how we’re going to operate the services” would not usually be “the final bit” of preparation – it would be the first. By starting recruitment for drivers in 2023, but not guards, Chiltern (under instruction from DfT) had signalled that it knew exactly how to operate the services a full two years ago.

But squaring that with the unions is a different matter. The SWR dispute was resolved with a fudge, effectively saying most trains would still have guards, they’d be called guards, but they wouldn’t quite be acting as guards. (The distinction between ‘Driver-Only’ and ‘Driver-Controlled’ comes into play here: DOO envisages a driver alone on the train, whereas DCO may have staff on board to check tickets or assist passengers.) Chiltern’s situation is already finely balanced: services south of Banbury don’t have guards, whereas those between Banbury and Birmingham do. The company will not want its existing guards to walk out on the suspicion that their days may be numbered.

 

[Class 170101]

I'm sorry but I think ASLEF and RMT are on a hiding to nothing with this, its a new route now they need to get on and start operations. The Government won't accept any method of operation other than DOO due to the ongoing cost that staff have. The money sunk in keeping the Class 196s idle will be nothing if the Unions win this one.

 

[fishwomp]

I'm sorry but I think ASLEF and RMT are on a hiding to nothing with this, its a new route now they need to get on and start operations. The Government won't accept any method of operation other than DOO due to the ongoing cost that staff have. The money sunk in keeping the Class 196s idle will be nothing if the Unions win this one.

I'd be interested to know where the issue is - RMT or ASLEF? Wondering what leverage RMT have here, and why, and whether structuring the ownership (eg. split EWR from Chiltern as a different company within same holding company) could have avoided this. Very late in the day to be figuring out how to run the service.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I'd be interested to know where the issue is - RMT or ASLEF? Wondering what leverage RMT have here, and why, and whether structuring the ownership (eg. split EWR from Chiltern as a different company within same holding company) could have avoided this. Very late in the day to be figuring out how to run the service.

Have ASLEF changed their stance on any new DOO then?

 

[newtownmgr]

Have ASLEF changed their stance on any new DOO then?

No. Not as far as i’m aware.

Still no new DOO

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2025 ==

I'm sorry but I think ASLEF and RMT are on a hiding to nothing with this, it’s a new route now they need to get on and start operations. The Government won't accept any method of operation other than DOO due to the ongoing cost that staff have. The money sunk in keeping the Class 196s idle will be nothing if the Unions win this one.

This is down to the company. Both ASLEF & RMT have stated for a long time that they won’t agree to any new DOO.

 

[zwk500]

I'd be interested to know where the issue is - RMT or ASLEF? Wondering what leverage RMT have here, and why, and whether structuring the ownership (eg. split EWR from Chiltern as a different company within same holding company) could have avoided this.

I suspect having a micro-TOC wouldn't have made any difference as the Trades Unions' problem isn't with Chiltern. They'd have fought DOO regardless of the operator. And from their Point of View, the actions of a recent government being hell bent on forcing through DOO on lines it wasn't really suitable for has ended up with a situation where it can't be brought in for reasonably sensible proposals.
Unless it's legally possible to establish a new TOC that isn't party to any collective bargaining agreements with the industry, that hired entirely non-RMT/ASLEF staff, and managed to come to a separate agreement with their staff. It probably isn't legally allowed to exclude specific Trades Unions though.

Very late in the day to be figuring out how to run the service.

Yes, EWR was always being built to have provision for DOO. I'd be interested to know if negotiations with the unions were able to begin prior to Chiltern being named as the TOC. If not, then there is a serious question for the government as to why the TOC announcement was so late in the day.

 

[DarloRich]

Surely the answer is to run the service with Chiltern drivers and Bletchley based guards until such time as a dela can be sorted out.
Far too easy of course..............

( do Northern and TPE not do something similar ?)

 

[Carlisle]

This is down to the company. Both ASLEF & RMT have stated for a long time that they won’t agree to any new DOO.

Crossrail & Barkimg Riverside were new DOO.

 

[zwk500]

Surely the answer is to run the service with Chiltern drivers and Bletchley based guards until such time as a dela can be sorted out.
Far too easy of course..............

( do Northern and TPE not do something similar ?)

The DfT will not want to introduce the service with guards and then go through the fight of removing them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They'd have fought DOO regardless of the operator.

Lumo doesn't appear to have had a problem bringing in DOO. OK, it has stewards, but it's effectively DOO.

 

[DarloRich]

The DfT will not want to introduce the service with guards and then go through the fight of removing them.

I am sure you could work the wording to make it possible. It just needs willingness. It is that or look stupid waiting 17 years to operate a service over an expensively built new railway line!

 

[fishwomp]

This is down to the company. Both ASLEF & RMT have stated for a long time that they won’t agree to any new DOO.

Thanks. I'd expected drivers get a premium for DOO, so hadn't thought they'd be against it.

 

[zwk500]

Lumo doesn't appear to have had a problem bringing in DOO. OK, it has stewards, but it's effectively DOO.

Lumo is an Open Access Operator, and operated only a handful of services a day. The risk of them rolling DOO out further didn't exist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lumo is an Open Access Operator, and operated only a handful of services a day. The risk of them rolling DOO out further didn't exist.

Given that Chiltern is about to take on a load of additional LHCS which can't be operated DOO meaning almost all Birmingham services will be guard operated throughout (rather than most just north of Banbury at present), I think the risk to guards' jobs is minimal.

 

[Watershed]

Given that Chiltern is about to take on a load of additional LHCS which can't be operated DOO meaning almost all Birmingham services will be guard operated throughout (rather than most just north of Banbury at present), I think the risk to guards' jobs is minimal.

But unfortunately the likes of the RMT don't see it that way...

 

[zwk500]

Thanks. I'd expected drivers get a premium for DOO, so hadn't thought they'd be against it.

Part of the objection from Drivers is simply the loss of a second person on-board in the face of increasing risks to their personal safety at work. Another big part of it is that the driver is now responsible for a train up to 240m long being safe to depart from the platform, in addition to their normal duties making sure the train is safe to move forward along the track.

Given that Chiltern is about to take on a load of additional LHCS which can't be operated DOO meaning almost all Birmingham services will be guard operated throughout (rather than most just north of Banbury at present), I think the risk to guards' jobs is minimal.

If you were a guard, in the current political and public-financial climate, would you simply sit back on your laurels and hope that a stop-gap fleet is going to secure your job for the long term?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you were a guard, in the current political and public-financial climate, would you simply sit back on your laurels and hope that a stop-gap fleet is going to secure your job for the long term?

I would think that three two-car diagrams on a glorified branch line would have about as much impact on it as the Marston Vale Line, to be honest. I do think there is the chance of wider DOO and associated disputes, but EWR will have no material impact on it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2025 ==

Part of the objection from Drivers is simply the loss of a second person on-board in the face of increasing risks to their personal safety at work. Another big part of it is that the driver is now responsible for a train up to 240m long being safe to depart from the platform, in addition to their normal duties making sure the train is safe to move forward along the track.

We're talking two-car DMUs here.

 

[zwk500]

I would think that three two-car diagrams on a glorified branch line would have about as much impact on it as the Marston Vale Line, to be honest. I do think there is the chance of wider DOO and associated disputes, but EWR will have no material impact on it.

That's all fine for you. However, I don't blame any guard, or their union, for being extremely resistant to any movement on DOO after the actions of previous governments.

We're talking two-car DMUs here.

I agree, DOO is totally practical for EWR, even if it did go up to 5- or 6-car lengths. However, the actions of previous governments in trying to stamp through DOO on much les suitable lines has made it much, much harder to have that reasonable conversation. The specific section you're responding to here was answering a question about Drivers being generally for or against DOO.

 

[Carlisle]

However, the actions of previous governments in trying to stamp through DOO on much les suitable lines has made it much, much harder to have that reasonable conversation.

What lines are you referring to? AFAIK Southern & London Overground are doing reasonably well as they are & don’t have compelling arguments to reinstate traditional guard operations.

 

[DavidGrain]

The Class 196s were constructed for DOO. They had to be retro fitted with guards door controls for use in the West Midlands.

 

[zwk500]

What lines are you referring to? AFAIK Southern & London Overground are doing reasonably well as they are & don’t have compelling arguments to reinstate traditional guard operations.

Lines operating 12-Car trains.

 

[Carlisle]

Lines operating 12-Car trains.

That’s an interesting debate as the highly publicised & contentious Southern dispute began mainly over that but some other TOCs had been operating 12 car DOO on certain routes long before then.

 

[newtownmgr]

Crossrail & Barkimg Riverside were new DOO.

Operated by existing DOO companies and the last agreed I believe

 

[CyrusWuff]

Operated by existing DOO companies and the last agreed I believe

Chiltern is already DOO South of Banbury, other than for the loco-hauled services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Operated by existing DOO companies and the last agreed I believe

Chiltern is an existing DOO company to be fair. (I suspect this has a fair bit to do with why they were chosen and not WMT).

 

[newtownmgr]

Chiltern is an existing DOO company to be fair. (I suspect this has a fair bit to do with why they were chosen and not WMT).

Not in the remit for WMT and as far as I’m aware they didn’t tender to operate the services.

I’ve been led to believe that apart from potential rebranding externally the units are or at least were to remain unmodified from there current state which would imply the asdo system will remain isolated. Obviously things may change but the units would have to be modified back as and when they return to WMT

 

[The Chimaera]

As the 196’s came from WMT they would not have operated DOO thus far, so has any 196’s actually been in service running DOO, for another company?
If not has the DOO equipment ever been passed as ‘fit for use’ ?
We have all heard stories about awful quality camera’s and sunlight obscuring the view. I wondered if this was another problem with the introduction that the Dft hadn’t taken into account.

 

[BlueLeanie]

As the 196’s came from WMT they would not have operated DOO thus far, so has any 196’s actually been in service running DOO, for another company?
If not has the DOO equipment ever been passed as ‘fit for use’ ?
We have all heard stories about awful quality camera’s and sunlight obscuring the view. I wondered if this was another problem with the introduction that the Dft hadn’t taken into account.

At the same time, LGVs and coaches are criss-crossing the country with cameras and screens instead of mirrors. My fairly modest car can identify a suitable parking space and self park. Cars are driving around UK cities entirely controlled by cameras, and wars are being fought with cameras mounted on drones controlled from thousands of miles away.

The failure to open this line is a national embarrassment.

 

[newtownmgr]

As the 196’s came from WMT they would not have operated DOO thus far, so has any 196’s actually been in service running DOO, for another company?
If not has the DOO equipment ever been passed as ‘fit for use’ ?
We have all heard stories about awful quality camera’s and sunlight obscuring the view. I wondered if this was another problem with the introduction that the Dft hadn’t taken into account.

DOO equipment on 196’s is isolated and never been used. As far as I’m aware it wasn’t used during testing or acceptance mileage running.

 

[Class 170101]

I'd be interested to know where the issue is - RMT or ASLEF? Wondering what leverage RMT have here, and why, and whether structuring the ownership (eg. split EWR from Chiltern as a different company within same holding company) could have avoided this. Very late in the day to be figuring out how to run the service.

It was clear to me by the fact they went with Chiltern as the operator that the DfT were going for DOO. Neither West Midlands Trains nor London North Western Railway run DOO in Passenger service. In terms of operation and the units used it would sit better with them rather than Chiltern but DOO operation is clearly the endgame here.