Merseyrail have guards on very similar services.
I don't think it's a "go-er" but I actually have more respect for this than ASLEF/RMT wanting no additional DOO but being happy for it to continue where it already exists. You either think DOO is adequately safe, in which case more of it is fine, or you think it's unsafe, in which case you should campaign for its total abolition.
Yes indeed. The fact the unions have agreed to DOO in the past does muddy the waters, however they would argue that things have changed; when DOO was introduced it was considered acceptable by everyone concerned that the driver could take an interlock light as gospel. Today we are far more safety conscious and the railway is vastly more crowded than in 1981.
That argument is not without merit, however it’s clearly unlikely that DOO is going to be reversed where introduced.
ASLEF wanting to go back to the 1970s isn’t.
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the 1970s when I was last given two on the bell by a guard… In fact it was earlier today
DOO is simple.
Somebody is responsible for the dispatch of the train. It is one of:
Driver
‘Guard’
Station platform dispatch staff.
There can only be one person ultimately responsible for confirming the train is safe to depart the station, and it is one of these three people.
Drivers may well not want that responsibility, fair enough, that’s a valid opinion. But them having responsibility is no different to any other human being having the responsibility, so long as the process is safe and the training & competence satisfactory. Ultimately it is one pair of eyes, one brain, and one process that is responsible. Whether they are located in the front of the train, in the middle / back of the train, or on the platform is irrelevant.
The process is clearly safe. If it wasn’t it would not be permitted, as it is for 3/4 of all rail passenger journeys in this country. As many people will remember, event the RSSB have conducted independent research which demonstrated DOO was, actually, safer than guard dispatch. I happen to know who presented that report to the RMT, and happen to know that dispute huffing and puffing, RMT actually accepted the conclusions (although they didn’t like them).
I agree with most of this. Certainly as a driver I don’t want DOO primarily because I don’t want the risk. I recognise that isn’t the same as arguing as it’s overall more or less safe than any other method.
However the report you mention IIRC struggled to conclude definitively and was agnostic on which was safest. Both are so safe, in absolute terms, as for it to not really matter which is used, there isn’t a lot to tell between them, and both will potentially give rise to different results in different situations.
The point really is that nobody can credibly argue against DOO on the basis that it’s less safe. The better argument is around the other benefits or keeping another person on the train and keeping a trained guard (as opposed to a
If they’re doing all that anyway (especially on long distance services that don’t stop much), why not have them present on the platform at stations to assist passengers, and doing driver-release-guard-close-dispatch?
To put another way; if you’re going to have a second person anyway, it doesn’t cost much extra to keep them safety critical, so the economic case for pushing DOO is much reduced…
Last edited: