Driver Only Operated Trains

[jopsuk]

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.

Thing is that the railways are not such a special case- think of the many people over the decades that have had to seek alternative employment as their industry has been mechanised/robotised, in factories especially. Or at the checkout in the supermarket- yes, a rather lower skilled job, but when one person is supervising eight self-checkouts, probably on no-more money than a "manual" operator, you can see what's happened.
News International employed far less people after the move to Wapping due to the automisation advances there. The new printing plant at Broxbourne, that replaced Wapping, employs, to the best of my knowledge, a third of the printing staff that Wapping did, yet the plant can print more papers, with less waste and to a higher quality.

There's benefits to modernisation- but a genuine problem is what to do with the people it displaces. "Not working" is frowned upon by society.

 

[sarahj]

Like 313 said, its nice to have a forum full of people who want to get rid of your job.

I'll give you a small example of what we do.

A couple of weeks ago I was on a train that was delayed by 2 hours due to a jumper near Gatwick. In the 2 hours I walked up and down the train, kept pasengers informed, kept the driver up to date and everyone seemed as happy as possible. I even had a passenger who did not like enclosed spaces (not going to attempt to spell the technical term), whom I managed to get a seat next to an open window on a 377 to calm down and even disscused posible issues with the driver and control if this person got worse.
End reult, calm passengers, calm driver not stressed out.
Meanwhile behind me I could see a FCC 319, a DOO service. I wonder how the passengers were doing in that train.

We have a job that a lot of people says is not needed, that if we went tickets would drop in price. But when the s*#t hits the fan, which happens more often than you think, would miss us. We also collect more than our wages in ticket sales, and while some of that might have been collected in other ways (and read disputes to see how problematic that becomes with the 'no one came round' excuse). But our number one job is safety, things that 99.9% of passengers never see. We dispatch safe, we keep issues on the train as safe as we can, we will try and keep you safe when things go wrong, we are a second pair or eyes, ears and sometimes noses. And if we make a mistake we can go to prison.

Of course there will always be someone who thinks, what do they do, we could save so much money, all they do is close the doors and then read the paper. These are also the same people who close ticket offices as it is much cheaper to have a machine, leave stations unstaffed, much cheaper to use CCTV, but then wonder why their customer statisfaction scores start falling.

Some people will say, we are a blast from the past, and its my job, so of course I will defend it. But I used to be a member of the public at one time, with a ticket and even a season, and then I was always much happier that there was a second person on the train, available, around and when things went wrong, knew what they were doing.

 

[Goldfish62]

No disrespect goldfish, but I'd like to think monty knows what he's on about. As a guard for SWT, you'd hope he knows more then the average joe... As far as I know, ASDO works using a database with how many carriages to release should the train stop in the correct position.

In which case I am happy to stand well and truly corrected!

 

[Barn]

Hang on, though. All unions are selfish in favour of their members and that fact is normally trumpeted on this forum as a good thing by union members .

ASLEF versus guards is no different to RMT versus public.

And how would you know about this, have you been in ASLEF of in the RMT, or any other trade union .
I speak from 27.5 years as a member of the RMT, and 27.5 years of the tricks ASLEF get upto when there is money to be made.

I don't really understand why you'd be at all surprised about that. Of course they do. ASLEF is not your union. Its members are not your comrades. In fact I suspect that many drivers choose ASLEF specifically so they can be in a union of drivers, for drivers.

You say this as if it's a bad thing, but all unions act for their members. The usual riposte from trade unionists is that this is what they are paid to do and if someone affected by it doesn't like it they can either. (a) put up with it or (b) form their own union.

You're in option (b) so if you feel you've been screwed by ASLEF in the past perhaps it's the RMT that you should be having words with...

 

[NSEFAN]

Given that the government wants the railways to be 75% funded by the farepayer, getting rid of guards would probably only lead to a temporary pause on fares increases at best.

 

[bronzeonion]

Like 313 said, its nice to have a forum full of people who want to get rid of your job.

I'll give you a small example of what we do.

A couple of weeks ago I was on a train that was delayed by 2 hours due to a jumper near Gatwick. In the 2 hours I walked up and down the train, kept pasengers informed, kept the driver up to date and everyone seemed as happy as possible. I even had a passenger who did not like enclosed spaces (not going to attempt to spell the technical term), whom I managed to get a seat next to an open window on a 377 to calm down and even disscused posible issues with the driver and control if this person got worse.
End reult, calm passengers, calm driver not stressed out.
Meanwhile behind me I could see a FCC 319, a DOO service. I wonder how the passengers were doing in that train.

We have a job that a lot of people says is not needed, that if we went tickets would drop in price. But when the s*#t hits the fan, which happens more often than you think, would miss us. We also collect more than our wages in ticket sales, and while some of that might have been collected in other ways (and read disputes to see how problematic that becomes with the 'no one came round' excuse). But our number one job is safety, things that 99.9% of passengers never see. We dispatch safe, we keep issues on the train as safe as we can, we will try and keep you safe when things go wrong, we are a second pair or eyes, ears and sometimes noses. And if we make a mistake we can go to prison.

Of course there will always be someone who thinks, what do they do, we could save so much money, all they do is close the doors and then read the paper. These are also the same people who close ticket offices as it is much cheaper to have a machine, leave stations unstaffed, much cheaper to use CCTV, but then wonder why their customer statisfaction scores start falling.

Some people will say, we are a blast from the past, and its my job, so of course I will defend it. But I used to be a member of the public at one time, with a ticket and even a season, and then I was always much happier that there was a second person on the train, available, around and when things went wrong, knew what they were doing.

I'm sure I read on here about a report into a failed 377 which caused major delays just north of St. Pancras Low Level. It was a hot summers day and it was an evening rush hour train which was packed, the train had quite a bad fault so could not move on its own. Whilst the driver was trying to contact control and find the fault etc the passengers were getting hot so using the egress handles on the doors to open them for ventilation and many were activating the pascom to try and contact the driver and the PA had failed too. It's all abit too much for the driver and terrible customer service as you only have one person to deal with both things resulting in a longer delay, less information to the passengers and one stressed out driver!

 

[jopsuk]

You can take ticket sales out and still make the case for retaining guards- South West Trains certainly do on their inner suburban services. I'd bet that modifying the 455 fleet for DOO wouldn't be technically difficult (the similar 317s operate DOO), but the company are either reluctant to take on the unions or genuionely feel that presence of guards on the trains is of value equal to or higher than the cost of getting rid of them. It is likely to be the latter, as Brian Souter has never shied away from picking a fight with unions...

As for inter-union problems, there are those that believe that trade unions should work together, rather than fight each other (that's after all part of the point of the TUC and, at some level, the Labour party). Union-on-union fighting likely ends up benifiting employers more than anything else.

 

[northwichcat]

Both Cambridge-London lines are DOO and have been for a long time. Many of stations have very limited staffing- typically weekday mornings.

I suppose this comes back to whether DOO means the driver opens and closes the door and there is a 'conductor' but he/she only checks/sells tickets or whether it means the driver is the only staff member on board.

I don't think having the driver as the only staff member on board where there are unstaffed stations isn't ideal for the reasons I gave before. I'm not saying it doesn't happen currently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you were starting from scratch, you'd never come up with a system where the Guard had to operate all doors (meaning that they needed to frequently go to the doors to control them on "stopper" services) - it's completely inefficient and stops them circulating around the train.

The term 'guard' was actually phased out in the North of England before Northern Rail and TPE started operating. TPE and Northern have conductors while other operators gave more fancy names e.g. Virgin using 'Train Manager' and Central using 'Senior Conductor' for any conductor who isn't a trainee.

 

[Spaceflower]

Given that the government wants the railways to be 75% funded by the taxpayer, getting rid of guards would probably only lead to a temporary pause on fares increases at best.

75% funded by the taxpayer! What percentage is currently funded by the taxpayer? I thought the whole idea of privatisation was to shift the burden off the taxpayer?

 

[SPADTrap]

I'm sure I read on here about a report into a failed 377 which caused major delays just north of St. Pancras Low Level. It was a hot summers day and it was an evening rush hour train which was packed, the train had quite a bad fault so could not move on its own. Whilst the driver was trying to contact control and find the fault etc the passengers were getting hot so using the egress handles on the doors to open them for ventilation and many were activating the pascom to try and contact the driver and the PA had failed too. It's all abit too much for the driver and terrible customer service as you only have one person to deal with both things resulting in a longer delay, less information to the passengers and one stressed out driver!

Video of that incident is on YouTube somewhere. Poor sod.

 

[northwichcat]

75% funded by the taxpayer! What percentage is currently funded by the taxpayer? I thought the whole idea of privatisation was to shift the burden off the taxpayer?

The government funds a lot of the upfront costs of the railways like electrification work, track upgrades, new trains etc. but then should get some of that money back through things like track access charges.

The WCML upgrade was a big fiasco though. Railtrack (a private company) went in to administration so the government owned Network Rail took charge. The taxpayer paid billions towards it but Virgin take home millions in profits every year from using it.

 

[Tomnick]

The term 'guard' was actually phased out in the North of England before Northern Rail and TPE started operating. TPE and Northern have conductors while other operators gave more fancy names e.g. Virgin using 'Train Manager' and Central using 'Senior Conductor' for any conductor who isn't a trainee.

The Rule Book refers to them all equally as Guards though, so that's what I continue to refer to them as: it'd save no end of confusion if that approach could be consistent!

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I suppose this comes back to whether DOO means the driver opens and closes the door and there is a 'conductor' but he/she only checks/sells tickets or whether it means the driver is the only staff member on board.

I don't think having the driver as the only staff member on board where there are unstaffed stations isn't ideal for the reasons I gave before. I'm not saying it doesn't happen currently.

The term 'guard' was actually phased out in the North of England before Northern Rail and TPE started operating. TPE and Northern have conductors while other operators gave more fancy names e.g. Virgin using 'Train Manager' and Central using 'Senior Conductor' for any conductor who isn't a trainee.

DOO means that a train can run without a guard present. There can be staff on board with other duties such as revenue protection or customer service but they are an optional extra because they have no actual responsibilities with regards to the running of the train.
The term "guard" has been phased out by pretty much every company too, but they are still referred to as guards in the rule book. If you are an operational Train Manager or Senior Conductor (or whatever) it is still explicitly clear that you are obliged to carry out the duties of the guard as stated in the rule book.

75% funded by the taxpayer! What percentage is currently funded by the taxpayer? I thought the whole idea of privatisation was to shift the burden off the taxpayer?

If only it were as simple as that. If the railways were meant to be profitable then they wouldn't exist in their current form. There is no way that private businesses would shell out for infrastructure like Crossrail, the Reading station remodelling or the Thameslink programme. The country will be much better off for having all of them but that money is only ever going to come from the taxpayer.

 

[Spaceflower]

DOO means that a train can run without a guard present. There can be staff on board with other duties such as revenue protection or customer service but they are an optional extra because they have no actual responsibilities with regards to the running of the train.
The term "guard" has been phased out by pretty much every company too, but they are still referred to as guards in the rule book. If you are an operational Train Manager or Senior Conductor (or whatever) it is still explicitly clear that you are obliged to carry out the duties of the guard as stated in the rule book.



If only it were as simple as that. If the railways were meant to be profitable then they wouldn't exist in their current form. There is no way that private businesses would shell out for infrastructure like Crossrail, the Reading station remodelling or the Thameslink programme. The country will be much better off for having all of them but that money is only ever going to come from the taxpayer.

I totally understand that but with all the cost of introducing privatisation and the huge hike in fares I didn't expect taxpayer contribution to be so high and I am even more surprised that 75% is only a target!

 

[Cherry_Picker]

This is a debate for a different thread but we have seen more investment in the railway over the past twenty years than we had seen in the previous fifty. The network was knackered when it was privatised, large parts of it are actually quite shiny and new now. The subsidy doesn't just cover the daily expense of running trains and paying staff, it's about everything and massive (re)development plans cost money.

 

[455driver]

I'm sure I read on here about a report into a failed 377 which caused major delays just north of St. Pancras Low Level.

It was an FCC 377 and it had a bit of a tree in the pantograph well, when it switched to OHL and got moving the bit of tree decided to short circuit the overhead wires leading to lots and lots of faults culminating in the passengers opening the doors as you stated.

Ended up quite messy that one with the train being moved in an unsafe condition as well as the fest of it.

The driver was trying to concentrate on getting the train moving (as he should) and the report was quite critical of DOO causing the driver work overload.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You can take ticket sales out and still make the case for retaining guards- South West Trains certainly do on their inner suburban services. I'd bet that modifying the 455 fleet for DOO wouldn't be technically difficult.

Southern 455s are already DOO, it is part of the SWT franchise that every train will have a guard on it.
I have heard different versions of how easy it is to convert SWT 455 to DOO ranging from "all the wiring is behind the panel to the left of the driving cab and just needs the switches installing" to "all the wiring has been removed and it would be a huge (although not impossible) job to re-instate it".


SWT is actively looking to make more duties "full crew working" where the driver and guard sign on together and stay together all shift and so preventing the train and driver but no guard or train and guard with no driver that happens with the present system when it goes base over apex, this can only be a good thing.

We have had a case where the driver had a heart attack and died at the controls (LM had a similar thing at Crewe but he survived), to all those advocating DOO what do you think would have happened in our case if there was no guard to take charge of the situation or in the LM case what if the driver had been completely incapacitated and couldnt get the train to a station?

As others have said we have been lucky that no DOO train has "lost" its driver but its only a matter of time before all the holes line up!

 

[tbtc]

For those trying to defend the status quo, are they only able to use the "what if the driver were the only member of staff on board" argument?

It's perfectly possible to have a train where the driver is responsible for operating the doors/ train safety etc yet there's a second member of staff on board (albeit not with the same responsibilities that a Guard currently has).

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

I think I'd get better customer service if my guard was able to concentrate on the passengers, rather than rushing off every few minutes to attend to the doors.

At the moment the mantra from Guards is that their first priority is customer safety, their second priority is operating the controls (and anything else is a distance third).

Since these two main priorities can be done by drivers, and *are* done by drivers on some lines, that'd free up a lot of Guard time to provide better customer service.

The Rule Book refers to them all equally as Guards though, so that's what I continue to refer to them as: it'd save no end of confusion if that approach could be consistent!

Likewise - much easier to write "Guard" (and avoid splitting hairs)

We have had a case where the driver had a heart attack and died at the controls (LM had a similar thing at Crewe but he survived), to all those advocating DOO what do you think would have happened in our case if there was no guard to take charge of the situation or in the LM case what if the driver had been completely incapacitated and couldnt get the train to a station?

As others have said we have been lucky that no DOO train has "lost" its driver but its only a matter of time before all the holes line up!

Trains used to have a second person in the cab (fireman). It'd be safer if we had a second driver in each cab to cover eventualities like heart attacks. But there's a cost/benefit ratio attached to all "safety" things.

If we were so obsessed with safety then we'd never have trains running at high speeds, we'd never have Third Rail (and we'd have banned private cars!)... but in reality we take a risk approach and decide which things are worth the risk and which aren't.

 

[ainsworth74]

75% funded by the taxpayer! What percentage is currently funded by the taxpayer? I thought the whole idea of privatisation was to shift the burden off the taxpayer?

That's a typo. The move is to 75% funding from fares revenue with the taxpayer providing 25%. That's a change from the previous formula of a 50/50 split.

 

[northwichcat]

For those trying to defend the status quo, are they only able to use the "what if the driver were the only member of staff on board" argument?

It's perfectly possible to have a train where the driver is responsible for operating the doors/ train safety etc yet there's a second member of staff on board (albeit not with the same responsibilities that a Guard currently has).

One thing to consider is the other day there was a thread saying about getting passengers needing medical attention off the train as soon as possible.

Imagine this was a Buxton line train the train stops at Woodsmoor near Stepping Hill hospital (which has part time staffing hours) so if the driver was controlling the doors a second member of on board staff could alight with the passenger needing medical attention and wait there for an ambulance to arrive, allowing the train to continue with it's journey without delay and without dumping the ill passenger at an unstaffed station. The second member of staff could then rejoin the return working and continue ticket inspecting duties.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Like 313 said, its nice to have a forum full of people who want to get rid of your job.

I think most people are actually wanting to redefine your role to meet current day demands not get rid of it.

In other industries like airlines some of the carriers that continue to use traditional methods are losing money and cutting back, while newer budget carriers are making large profits and expanding to new destinations and introducing new jobs even though the number of staff may be proportionally lower at budget carriers overall.

With trains passenger numbers are growing but the private sector still relies on government funding to keep the railways going. The problem is something has to be cut back and at the moment it's looking like ticket office hours will be reduced to cut staffing costs.

 

[NSEFAN]

That's a typo. The move is to 75% funding from fares revenue with the taxpayer providing 25%. That's a change from the previous formula of a 50/50 split.

Yes you're quite right! I've fixed it now!

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Some of the comments made by so called "enthusiasts" quite frankly dishearten me. I just hope none of you need the guard when something goes seriously wrong and find out because of "money saving" there isn't one and you are left on your own with 25kv above you and trains running both sides of you.......You will be on your own then, good luck!

 

[ainsworth74]

You do realise that the majority of people on here are opposed to DOO which would see only the driver left on the train? As stated above there is a desire redefine the role, not de-staff the trains.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

You do realise that the majority of people on here are opposed to DOO which would see only the driver left on the train? As stated above there is a desire redefine the role, not de-staff the trains.

Once you start taking responsibility away, it is a slippery slope, so you remove the guard and put a rpi on board, does that person have the route or traction knowledge that a guard has? very rarely they do. People believe that Technology can overcome anything.

April 15th 1912 ring any bells?

100 years later people are still saying "Modernisation" and "Technology" can cure all ills.


It can't

History proves that


The point I am trying to make is every generation going back hundreds of years claims some form of technology is the greatest thing since sliced bread and it will save money and lives, sometimes yes it does. but usually it only saves money and then only in the short term.

 

[northwichcat]

ANorthernGuard - Can you explain how the role of route knowledge can prove useful for someone employed in a guard/conductor role is in the current day?

 

[313103]

If you get rid of the role of the Guard that will be it. No company would want to have me on board a train earning a salary of £26,000, when they can get that kind of job done for £16,000 or better still for them no one at all costing nothing at all.

Also the role of the Guard will not be redifined, once the operational aspect of the role is withdrawn the grade as a whole will also be withdrawn. Once the grade is withdrawn you are given three opurtunities to take other jobs. The reason for this is that they will not offer you redundancy, they will ovfer you these jobs often nowhere near your currrently based and if you turn all three jobs down you have then made yourself unemployable as the company by law will have said they have offered reasonable alternatives being based at Willesden and offered a postion at West Croydon is not a suitable alternative to me.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

ANorthernGuard - Can you explain how the role of route knowledge can prove useful for someone employed in a guard/conductor role is in the current day?

Its vital in the current day, route knowledge is not just stations or junctions. lets use your route as an example. Train partially (its still making a Track Circuit) derails on the single line between Mouldsworth and Mickle Trafford. Your driver is knocked out Passengers are injured. its pitch black.

A guard will know where he is

He will know that Farmer Johnsons level Crossing is about half a mile towards Chester, He will know that there is no easy access for emergency crews the 2 miles behind him. He will be able to tell the signaller where he is pretty accurately (the sections are quite long on that single line). Pretty basic stuff that can save lives.


Emergency protection is another key area where the Guards route knowledge is vital.

Route Knowledge is a core skill that every guard has and is vital in so many ways. A customer service worker or RPI cannot match that type of skill.

 

[northwichcat]

Its vital in the current day, route knowledge is not just stations or junctions. lets use your route as an example. Train partially (its still making a Track Circuit) derails on the single line between Mouldsworth and Mickle Trafford. Your driver is knocked out Passengers are injured. its pitch black.

A guard will know where he is

He will know that Farmer Johnsons level Crossing is about half a mile towards Chester, He will know that there is no easy access for emergency crews the 2 miles behind him. He will be able to tell the signaller where he is pretty accurately (the sections are quite long on that single line). Pretty basic stuff that can save lives.


Emergency protection is another key area where the Guards route knowledge is vital.

Route Knowledge is a core skill that every guard has and is vital in so many ways. A customer service worker or RPI cannot match that type of skill.

I can see your point but like tbtc said earlier on what if we were drawing up railway regulations for the very first time based on the current infrastructure and rolling stock? If you put that argument forward then someone else I might say "What if the guard is also badly injured?" to which someone else might respond "Good point we probably need one guard per carriage instead of one per train." Then someone else might say "Waiting for an ambulance might cost lives" to which a response might be "Well the guard will need to be trained to do paramedic duties (opposed to just first aid)" and so on and we could go on to finish up with a hospital carriage on every train with a trained nurse on board. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere and if the regulations were being drawn up now it wouldn't necessarily be in the same place as it currently is.

I don't think any passengers really want a G4S person replacing the guard who then when a small tree falls on the line can't go on to the track to help remove it because he doesn't have a track access pass but I appreciate that the senior management might have different views on that.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I can see your point but like tbtc said earlier on what if we were drawing up railway regulations for the very first time based on the current infrastructure and rolling stock? If you put that argument forward then someone else I might say "What if the guard is also badly injured?" to which someone else might respond "Good point we probably need one guard per carriage instead of one per train." Then someone else might say "Waiting for an ambulance might cost lives" to which a response might be "Well the guard will need to be trained to do paramedic duties (opposed to just first aid)" and so on and we could go on to finish up with a hospital carriage on every train with a trained nurse on board. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere and if the regulations were being drawn up now it wouldn't necessarily be in the same place as it currently is.

I don't think any passengers really want a G4S person replacing the guard who then when a small tree falls on the line can't go on to the track to help remove it because he doesn't have a track access pass but I appreciate that the senior management might have different views on that.

imho the balance is pretty right as it is (and I know some people will say well he is going to say that anyway) Let the Driver Drive and the Guard, Guard. He looks after the train and Guards look after the passengers. he sorts out technical stuff below the floor and we sort it out above. (apart from pantographs lol) 2 well trained members of staff looking after a few hundred people at a time (even more down darkest South) is hardly excessive and when the Driver and guard works together we can sort so many more things out between us quicker and safer then just a driver on their own can do. I have no doubt in my mind that Guards will be assigned into the history books in a few decades, it will be a travesty but it will happen as a live is worth only so many £££'s to a company. If and when it does the only people who will benefit will be shareholders, if anyone is foolish enough to think they will benefit in lower fares then they are sadly mistaken.

 

[wigwamman]

So in theory,how long would it take or more to the point cost,to implement doo on the northern rail network,and what kind of franchise length would be needed to make this viable.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

So in theory,how long would it take or more to the point cost,to implement doo on the northern rail network,and what kind of franchise length would be needed to make this viable.

with the amount of absolute block, age of rolling stock, upgrading of platforms etc etc etc I reckon at least 20 odd years