Driver Only Operated Trains

[millemille]

Scenario:

The 17:30 DOO rush hour service calling at all stations to Welwyn Garden City departs Kings Cross packed to the brim with commuters. Further along the line some vandals have laid a short piece of rail accross the 4 foot ontop of the rails. It is foggy and dark but the driver spots the rail last second and applies the emergency brakes knowing that will not stop the accident. The front of the train collides with an embankment wall killing the driver and the rest of the train derails and is in danger of being crashed into by a passing train on the other line. The passengers for the majority are alive but many are uncouncious and some are seriously injured from where they have been crushed by people, breaking bones etc. The passengers who are mainly uninjured naturally try to flee the scene and whilst doing so are limping accross the other lines trying to get away from the scene and find help. Meanwhile the still uncouncious or seriously injured passengers who are now unable to move due to serious injury are still in the wreckage and a fire breaks out. By now the emergency services have arrived and hopefully some emergency reponse units from the railway too.

If there was a guard on the train in that scenario the emergency services and control would have been alerted much quicker and the adjecent lines would be blocked preventing another collision or at least lessening the risk of another collision by a huge amount.

Unfortunately it will take a fatal accident to have DOO looked at properly, till then may the unsafe money saving method continue.

This would have to happen every year, year on year, and kill 27 people each and every time to justify doing away with DOO for my TOC.

 

[bronzeonion]

This would have to happen every year, year on year, and kill 27 people each and every time to justify doing away with DOO for my TOC.

Are you joking?

 

[notadriver]

Is there a general agreement in this thread that long distance services should not be DOO?

 

[millemille]

Are you joking?

Why would I be joking?

The rail industry gives a human life the value of ~£1.7M for quantative risk assessment purposes in terms of determining ALARP.

Similar logic was used following Ladbroke Grove and the fire that was due to the fuel tank splitting on impact and how many people were killed by the fire, not the impact.

Whilst viewed qualitatively the risk required that every fuel tank on every loco and DMU should be modified/replaced to make it stronger and less prone to split upon impact ,the quantative risk made no sense to do this as the cost of modifying every fuel tank was an order of magnitude greater than not modifying the tanks and paying out for any deaths in a similar incident in the future.

As Low As Reasonably Practical - it isn't reasonable to spend significantly more money on preventing the loss of life than the loss of life itself costs.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is there a general agreement in this thread that long distance services should not be DOO?

No advantage to it on a long distance service it only becomes logical on short distance commuter/stopper type services. It's unlikely to make sense on rural services either (the Whitby branch for example).

 

[MacRae13]

Do people advocating DOO with a TE on board realise that the TE is not classed as safety critical and so cannot help where the driver is incapacitated or to detrain the passengers in an emergency as they do not hold PTS and are not trained in evacuation etc, all they do is tickets and customer service.

Just out of interest, what exactly is the safety rôle of a ScotRail ticker examiner and how does that differ from that of a guard?.

Not trying to make any points or judgements here, just wondering. I would imagine that a guard would be more highly trained, have more responsibility and be better paid.

To be fair, non safety critical staff do get trained in how to assist with an evacuation. So although their function is to assist the conductor with the evacuation process, the public would be wrong not take instruction from a TE etc., thinking they know better themselves.

Question, regarding Scotrail - why is it only electrics that are DOO whilst diesels still have guards? Is it simply that the electrics are suburban routes whilst the diesels are inter-city? Or is it something to do with the motive power? I've always meant to ask someone this probably stupid question

 

[455driver]

Its to do with the former StrathClyde PTE area which was DOO.

Now it is all rolled into ScotRail the waters have been muddied somewhat.

 

[the sniper]

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/3/5/6/enhanced-buzz-3177-1362483119-0.jpg (ignore the amusing local newspaper headline)

I absolutely loved that headline. Greatly amused me every time I saw it!

I'm not so sure about the safety argument holding TOCs back, cost is still one of the big factors in keeping guards on trains.[...]
People will say that TOCs will get their money back after going DOO, and they will eventually. I don't even think a guard who is fully paid up RMT member will dispute that fact, but the problem (or depending on your point of view, the benefit) of rolling out such a program is how long it will take to get that money back. If it takes, say 10 years to get your money back then why would a TOC on a 7 year franchise want to spend half of that time being in dispute with it's staff and installing expensive equipment only to find it loses the franchise at the end of it all?

Almost exactly what I've said to colleagues on a number of occasions. So long as the current ridiculous franchising system remains, the Guard grade will continue to exist in its current form unchanged. Long may it continue, I say!

Why would I be joking?

The rail industry gives a human life the value of ~£1.7M for quantative risk assessment purposes in terms of determining ALARP.

Interesting how you love facts yet you've worked out that number from the cost of having Guards at your TOC (~£45m, which you had an educated guess at, I imagine?), while conveniently believing that every Guard at your TOC would earn absolutely nothing in revenue... My depot is largely suburban work and covered by a penalty fare scheme, yet almost every shift I pay at least half of my wages, more often than not I cover all my wages and sometimes, diagram permitting, 2 or 3 times my daily salary.

You also haven't taken into account the many other benefits of having a Guard, many of which have financial side benefits if you're counting delay minutes (which is good, seeing as the railway solely exists to trade delay minutes nowadays!), these include:

• Having someone to get disabled passengers on and off the train at the correct station where platform/station staff aren't provided or available. As such the company don't have to pay for taxis and there are less problems with wheelchair users being carried over.
• Having someone who can provide live information over the PA while the train is in motion or the driver is dealing with his main duties in the event of an incident.
• Having someone on the train who can take phone calls from the Control room at all times and receive information via emails. At my TOC we often get calls to ask us to look for a certain piece of missing luggage on our train, or even missing/vulnerable persons.
• One for the TOC, but something that is increasingly common where I am, the TOC having someone who they can call immediately to explain why their train has collected a couple of delay minutes on route... Also someone who can advise control of what's going on during incidents and liaise with them while the driver is talking to the signaller, inspecting the train, or doing whatever else the rule book requires of them. We also pass on a lot of messages to the driver, like telling them to call the signaller immediately when we come to a certain stop signal, or informing them of special (non-)stopping orders.
• Someone who can assist in attending to faults with doors (which can be a two man job!), toilets or other onboard equipment, or can provide individual passengers with information or assistance.
• Can assist the driver in the event a shunt move (i.e. telling them when they've cleared a set of points or a signal. Or help the driver clear the line of an obstruction, or any of the other numerous things the rule book allows us to do.
• Able to quickly deal with/reset Passcom activations, whether they've been done for a reason or (much more likely) unnecessarily/accidentally. It's much easier and quicker for the Guard to reset it than the driver, and a Guard can stick around and deal with any aftermath.
• Reduced risk of a driver starting against a stop signal at a station, as two heads are better than one.
• Can reduce the possibility of the doors being opened when the train isn't accommodated in the platform. The call to the driver on the Cab to Cab to ask them to move forward isn't a complexly unusual one, due to us having variable length formations and the drivers regularly switching between them on the same routes.

That's aside from, in my opinion, Guard operation of the doors, particularly the closing of the doors and dispatch, being safer than the Driver having to do it from their cab via screens/mirrors. Particularly as it's on top of all their other duties.

 

[millemille]

Interesting how you love facts yet you've worked out that number from the cost of having Guards at your TOC (~£45m, which you had an educated guess at, I imagine?), while conveniently believing that every Guard at your TOC would earn absolutely nothing in revenue... My depot is largely suburban work and covered by a penalty fare scheme, yet almost every shift I pay at least half of my wages, more often than not I cover all my wages and sometimes, diagram permitting, 2 or 3 times my daily salary.

I haven't said that there would be no benefit in having other train crew on board, what I have questioned is whether the additional staff pay for themselves?

Given that most of our stations are barriered and we already have a large RPI community out there the amount of free riders isn't that great so the amount of additional revenue they could generate isn't that great.

My educated guess on the cost of doing away with DOO is based on the number of drivers we have, the number of guards we already have, subtracting one from the other and multiplying this by the average guard salary and adding 25% for employment overheads (pension, NI etc).

We've been running DOO services for over 20 years on the majority of our services and there is no business case, based on revenue or safety or customer satisfaction or a combination of these and any other reasons, to change.

 

[Mojo]

Its to do with the former StrathClyde PTE area which was DOO.

Question, regarding Scotrail - why is it only electrics that are DOO whilst diesels still have guards? Is it simply that the electrics are suburban routes whilst the diesels are inter-city? Or is it something to do with the motive power? I've always meant to ask someone this probably stupid question

There are (or at least were) suburban routes in the area which have/had no wires, like the Paisley Canal service which IIRC was juiced up only last year.

There can't be any technical limitations to running diesel trains as DOO, as Chiltern south of Banbury, a significant amount of the Thames Valley network and when class 170s went south of Ipswich all run/ran Driver Only.

The units themselves however are probably not compatible due to lack of door controls in the Cabs.

 

[notadriver]

MilleMille I assume you are talking about the metro services of your TOC as all mainline services will have a conductor and they are worth their weight in gold.

 

[Spaceflower]

No advantage to it on a long distance service it only becomes logical on short distance commuter/stopper type services. It's unlikely to make sense on rural services either (the Whitby branch for example).

I would beg to differ as reducing operational costs would be a bigger consideration than time saving on rural routes? However, DOO on rural routes this would be counter productive due to lost revenue.

As far as I can see, in the UK, only light transit systems seem to be DOO (with the mentioned exception).

 

[millemille]

MilleMille I assume you are talking about the metro services of your TOC as all mainline services will have a conductor and they are worth their weight in gold.

I agree, when I'm travelling on a mainline service the on-train ticket sales take up so much of a diligent conductor's time due to a significant percentage of passengers not buying tickets before they get on the train.

But when I'm travelling on a metro service and the RPI's are going through they're collaring far, far fewer passengers who are travelling without a ticket.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not so sure about the safety argument holding TOCs back, cost is still one of the big factors in keeping guards on trains. The investment needed into bringing everything up to DOO standards is huge and while it is being chipped away at over time (most, if not all new traction is at least DOO ready and GSM-R is a significant step in undermining the role of the guard) it is still going to be expensive to do a lot of lines, and that is before you even consider the cost of going to war with the unions.
People will say that TOCs will get their money back after going DOO, and they will eventually. I don't even think a guard who is fully paid up RMT member will dispute that fact, but the problem (or depending on your point of view, the benefit) of rolling out such a program is how long it will take to get that money back. If it takes, say 10 years to get your money back then why would a TOC on a 7 year franchise want to spend half of that time being in dispute with it's staff and installing expensive equipment only to find it loses the franchise at the end of it all?

The next round of Franchising might be interesting, a lot of them will be the first ones drawn up post McNulty.

Which I think is exactly why DOO, or indeed any proper attempt at restructuring the industry, hasn't really been rolled out since privatisation; it doesn't make sense (financially) for a Toc to do it given the current structure of the industry.

Agreed - see also "getting Sundays to be fully staffed"...

BR was able to get things done (like introducing hundreds of miles of DOO without significant bother). Current TOCs are only in charge for a few years, so have little incentive to take long term decisions.

Its a bit like expecting people renting a house to tackle dry rot - they won't be there long enough to make it worth their while.

Hard to justify the status quo, other than accepting that "we are where we are" so it'd be too expensive to change things in the short term

Why would I be joking?

The rail industry gives a human life the value of ~£1.7M for quantative risk assessment purposes in terms of determining ALARP.

Similar logic was used following Ladbroke Grove and the fire that was due to the fuel tank splitting on impact and how many people were killed by the fire, not the impact.

Whilst viewed qualitatively the risk required that every fuel tank on every loco and DMU should be modified/replaced to make it stronger and less prone to split upon impact ,the quantative risk made no sense to do this as the cost of modifying every fuel tank was an order of magnitude greater than not modifying the tanks and paying out for any deaths in a similar incident in the future.

As Low As Reasonably Practical - it isn't reasonable to spend significantly more money on preventing the loss of life than the loss of life itself costs.

Sobering words - which is why I tend to hate these arguments, because they tend toward the "What if the one in a million event happened... would you want blood on your hands" stuff. The reality is that people have to balance the cost of these risks with their probability (hence the figures that you quoted).

Is there a general agreement in this thread that long distance services should not be DOO?

My personal view is that the "Guard"s role on longer distance services is a little different - there's a lot fewer stops (or "less frequent" stops), there's maybe more passengers travelling without the right tickets (factor in the fact that many on commuter trains have season tickets/ passes whereas longer distance "Guards" have to deal with train-specific tickets/ First Class issues).

 

[Spaceflower]

I agree, when I'm travelling on a mainline service the on-train ticket sales take up so much of a diligent conductor's time due to a significant percentage of passengers not buying tickets before they get on the train.

But when I'm travelling on a metro service and the RPI's are going through they're collaring far, far fewer passengers who are travelling without a ticket.

Partly due to habit due to a history of a lack of ticket facilities at many stations? Conductors on metros wouldn't be practical due to the nature of traffic .

 

[millemille]

Partly due to habit due to a history of a lack of ticket facilities at many stations? Conductors on metros wouldn't be practical due to the nature of traffic .

From what I overhear it's vastly passengers just not bothering to attempt to buy a ticker before they get on board and relying on the conductor being on board with a working TVM and able/willing to sell them a ticket.

 

[313103]

I am not going to say much except to say ' I am a guard and it is always reassuring to know that people want me out of Job'.

 

[455driver]

Dont worry 313, these people have no power whatsoever (luckily) to do away with you and no actual idea about what your job actually entails either.

 

[Spaceflower]

From what I overhear it's vastly passengers just not bothering to attempt to buy a ticker before they get on board and relying on the conductor being on board with a working TVM and able/willing to sell them a ticket.

I wouldn't disagree with you, the same thing happens or would happen on the metro's without deterrents (i.e. regular 'raids' or barriers'). Indeed it does happen alot on the quieter ungated T & W metro stations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Anyway, lets face it, many pax will buy from the guard because they can.

 

[class303]

I use the Chingford line daily. I'd welcome ANY rail staff presence on the trains, it's almost unheard of to see anyone and fare evasion on this line is widespread.

In the last year i've used the Liverpool st to Chingford services literally hundreds of time and only seen an RPI check once & even that was a waste of time as they boarded at bethnal green on a Liverpool st bound service. Everyone knows there is barriers at Liverpool street so everyone still on the train after Bethnal green tends to be legit. Huge numbers of people don't bother touching in or out at stations like Walthamstow central, hackney downs, clapton etc where there is no barriers. I've seen RPIs at clapton, once in a whole year & never anywhere else. They are really missing a trick at Walthamstow central. £20 penalty fare if caught won't put people off.

If you're going to operate a line as DOO, as least sort out the infrastructure at intermediate stations to prevent widespread fare evasion.

Oh, I tell a lie, i've seen revenue protection at Walthamstow central a couple of times .....but only by London underground at the top of the Vic line escalators, which have barriers anyway. sigh

 

[Starmill]

In the last year i've used the Liverpool to Chingford services ...

You made my brain melt for a few minutes there, before I realised I was suffering from The Norwich Problem!

 

[class303]

You made my brain melt for a few minutes there, before I realised I was suffering from The Norwich Problem!

oooh. corrected

 

[jopsuk]

I am not going to say much except to say ' I am a guard and it is always reassuring to know that people want me out of Job'.

This is, as always, the human issue with "modernisation"- rail is not unique in this.

Though I'd rather see guards retained/reintroduced, even if pointing out that there's no evidence of the world having ended on DOO routes.

 

[313103]

This is, as always, the human issue with "modernisation"- rail is not unique in this.

Though I'd rather see guards retained/reintroduced, even if pointing out that there's no evidence of the world having ended on DOO routes.

However for the Guard in most of these areas where DOO did take place, it was the end of the world. Most of the Guards i worked with on the Chiltern Line either left the industry or moved away. Me i had to move to Willesden and join what was then the Network South East North Division later to become Silverlink and now London Overground. I regard myself as being one of the lucky ones having been ab;e to stay in employment ever since. The only draw back is that since 1988 when the initial work on the Chiltern Line started i have always had those three magic words sitting quietly on my heavy shoulders.

With a change in Management at the top of London Overground those magic words could well come back into the fray. The only real reason why DOO came in in the first place was because the then NUR had weak leadership that allowed hundreds of staff to leave.

 

[thelem]

With a change in Management at the top of London Overground those magic words could well come back into the fray. The only real reason why DOO came in in the first place was because the then NUR had weak leadership that allowed hundreds of staff to leave.

You seem to think that the railway exists to provide jobs for people. While redundancies are obviously not a nice thing, if the railway is able to operate safely without those hundreds of staff then they were not needed and it is right that they should be doing other jobs where they are needed (on the railway or otherwise).

 

[notadriver]

You seem to think that the railway exists to provide jobs for people. While redundancies are obviously not a nice thing, if the railway is able to operate safely without those hundreds of staff then they were not needed and it is right that they should be doing other jobs where they are needed (on the railway or otherwise).

I don't know where you got that he thinks the 'railway exists to provide jobs for people' from? As he works in a safety critical role on the railway, he is in a far better position than you to determine what is and isn't safe on the routes and traction he works on.

 

[ainsworth74]

As he works in a safety critical role on the railway, he is in a far better position than you to determine what is and isn't safe.

So DOO is unsafe in all circumstances?

 

[455driver]

DOO is not unsafe in all circumstances but Driver and guard operation has the potential to be safer in certain circumstances and it also offers better customer service.

Edit-

Why is the cheapest option always the best?
Oops silly me, I mean "value for money" dont I, its a pity none of our MPs do a "value for money" appraisal on their second homes (whether they have "flipped" it or not) or their travel arrangements.
When I see Ford Fiestas and Vauxhall Corsas outside their (taxpayer funded) homes I will agree with "value for money" but until then lets try and focus on providing as good a service as possible shall we!

 

[313103]

You seem to think that the railway exists to provide jobs for people. While redundancies are obviously not a nice thing, if the railway is able to operate safely without those hundreds of staff then they were not needed and it is right that they should be doing other jobs where they are needed (on the railway or otherwise).

The irony of your statement is that so many who say these things are often people who would love to work in the industry at any level.

Who are you to determine wether hundreds of staff were needed or not. DOO was not brought in on safety grounds, DOO was brought in order to save money pure and simple along with other ideas like the open station concept remember that.

I know only to well what can or cannot be done on the railways. All the companies could dispense with Guards, Station staff, Booking office staff and Middle Management therefore saving millions on the wage bill, but would you want to travel by train under these circumstances.

Of course the other issue is that some people seem to think that having DOO would get them cheaper travel. I wonder if the comparable fare on a First Capital Connect service from Bedford to London under DOO is any cheaper then that from say on a London Midland service from Milton Keynes to London under conventionally manned mode.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So DOO is unsafe in all circumstances?

I will ask you the flip side of the coin then 'Is DOO safe in all circumstances'?

 

[millemille]

I will ask you the flip side of the coin then 'Is DOO safe in all circumstances'?

For all Railway Undertakings which are already using DOO then the answer is a resounding "Yes".

They would not have a Safety Case if it wasn't.

The risks associated with DOO are well known and understood and the necessary mitigations will have to be in place and safety performance monitored in order for the Safety Case to be granted and maintained.