Inspectors.

[carriageline]

On the subject of job losses, it's the same with Signallers. There numbers are/will be dropping MASSIVELY, over the coming years, in the way for "new technology", with workloads being increased for a majority of the ones that are staying in the new places/new roles in the new places.

 

[ainsworth74]

On the subject of job losses, it's the same with Signallers. There numbers are/will be dropping MASSIVELY, over the coming years, in the way for "new technology", with workloads being increased for a majority of the ones that are staying in the new places/new roles in the new places.

Though unless something’s changed the vast majority of those losses will be absorbed by natural wastage and voluntary redundancy.

 

[Starmill]

Indeed. Technology is great and all but there has to be a limit on the number of people it can replace before it actually becomes economically damaging. We live in an ever increasing population with ever decreasing numbers of jobs. In order to have a sustainable, growing economy you need to have people in jobs earning money in order for taxes to be collected and money spent. Technology might save one company money but it damages others if the money they were getting from those sacked employees no longer exists.

The concept of replacing people with new technology all the time isn't sustainable.

I can't let this go unchallenged I'm afraid!

Its far too simple to say 'more people and fewer jobs' - the best way I can explain this is to say that the company which manufactures the DOO equipment is going to employ people, isn't it? It's going to have to be designed by someone, and then no doubt there will have to be contractors to come and install it. Theoretically, if the same amount of money is spent by the TOC on this as it would have spent on staff that's not doing any harm to the economy - in fact, its probably a boost, because people tend to save money, whereas by buying DOO equipment the money is being spent faster.

What will happen here is we will create some structural unemployment - people who are trained as guards will no longer be able to do those jobs, so they will have to go and get some different skills and do a different job. This is certainly not good for the economy at a time when its so weak, but it depends on how flexible the labour force is. I don't know, but I'd imagine that there are plenty of other roles an experienced guard could carry out.

Now having said that I think that DOO is a terrible idea and was from the start. Some of the set-ups just look like deathtraps (admittedly to my untrained eye).

We'll all accept it too, as it makes our own lives easier - without seeing the bigger picture.

Unfortunately I think the 'bigger picture' normally results in the attitude that we must not stand in the way of progress!

 

[Captain Chaos]

I can't let this go unchallenged I'm afraid!

Its far too simple to say 'more people and fewer jobs' - the best way I can explain this is to say that the company which manufactures the DOO equipment is going to employ people, isn't it? It's going to have to be designed by someone, and then no doubt there will have to be contractors to come and install it. Theoretically, if the same amount of money is spent by the TOC on this as it would have spent on staff that's not doing any harm to the economy - in fact, its probably a boost, because people tend to save money, whereas by buying DOO equipment the money is being spent faster.

What will happen here is we will create some structural unemployment - people who are trained as guards will no longer be able to do those jobs, so they will have to go and get some different skills and do a different job. This is certainly not good for the economy at a time when its so weak, but it depends on how flexible the labour force is. I don't know, but I'd imagine that there are plenty of other roles an experienced guard could carry out.

Now having said that I think that DOO is a terrible idea and was from the start. Some of the set-ups just look like deathtraps (admittedly to my untrained eye).

Given the current trend for DOO appears to be having in-built cameras then I fail to see where these new jobs manufacturing the equipment are going to come from? If the DOO equipment is on the train itself then no installation is required, therefore no extra jobs? It's quite clear that all new stock is being designed with cameras on the doors. An IEP design I have seen clearly has DOO cameras marked out on them. So, eventually, by design the jobs of those manufacturing the current DOO equipment will be made redundant as well due to "innovation" in the industry.

Whilst I take on-board your point of re-training (I am currently studying with the OU myself in order to give myself options) this option may not be suitable nor perhaps available to everyone. Not only this but when you have re-trained or gained some qualification you often get told it's useless by employers and the job market gets swamped by university/college leavers looking for jobs themselves. The same university/college leavers who were told that further education would brighten their prospects yet are finding the reality to be very different.

 

[jon0844]

There will of course need to be people to design the DOO systems, and produce the cameras that are given to the train maker to put on the train - and someone to produce the interface to make it work with the train management system etc, but there will be fewer people than the people replaced, especially if said trains are going to work for 30-40-50 years.

And those nice UK jobs for people making equipment for trains might be wiped out when we decide that we can buy in cameras from a company abroad, for less money.

That's the other problem we have to face - there might be 'other' jobs to do, but will they all be over here given we are increasingly becoming a service industry and those services can be provided from anywhere in a lot of cases.

Jobs like electricians, plumbers and fitters can still command good money, even with increased competition from people from elsewhere in the EU. But how many jobs like this, where you can't replace people with machines or outsource abroad, will there be in the future?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

It's a difficult question. I'm still of the opinion that people will find something to do, something we probably don't even know exists yet. Admittedly I'm basing this theory on the fact that the same thing happened when we moved from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy (and who would go back now?) and a little bit of faith that governments are not going to let their economies go into the toilet just because corporations would all like a bigger share of what is going around, though by god has that faith been tested in recent years!

 

[jon0844]

I hope you're right, for the sake of my 16 month old son.

 

[Starmill]

Well a 377 has cameras along the whole length of the train. An additional refinement could be if the screens could show the inside of all coaches simultaneously. At the moment the camera go off at once the speed reaches 4 mph. I suggest this be changed so they don't go off until the whole train has left the platform.

I have always been mystified by this. Conflicting reports on here range from the cameras on some stock or other that has them cutting out between taking power and reaching about 5 mph. I don't understand why the cameras should have been set up to go off so soon if they are the only method of the driver checking down the train on a DOO service? Is it seen as OK for there to be nobody watching the platform as soon as the train starts to move, but there could be more than 200m of train accelerating along a platform? I'm not loading the question if that's standard practise, but it doesn't seem safe to me! Then I guess if you were to look at older stock where there are no platform staff and no guard, you can't see a mirror on the platform after you have moved beyond it, can you?

Surely, if DOO must prevail then CCTV is the way to go, but you surely need to be able to see until just after the whole train is clear of the platform? Is there a possible issue with drivers getting distracted by the cameras here or something? Increased likelihood of not checking a signal/speed restriction/other hazard? If that's the reason the cameras are disabled then I would argue that looks like putting too much on the shoulders of the driver at the point of despatch...

 

[notadriver]

When I observed class 334 units in Scotland, their cameras go off the moment the doors are closed.

To be honest the way it works on trains with power operated doors - the guard cannot see outside the train once it moves as they are not meant to be despatching from cabs on most modern units such as Electrostars. Even with Platform staff giving the Right Away there is no means to stop a train from the outside once RA is given. Ideally the cctv cameras would be on until the train has left the platform but this hasn't been flagged as a safety issue yet?

 

[A-driver]

With 377 style CCTV I believe it is more to do with 'them' not wanting to distract drivers whilst they are driving by having the cameras stay on- at a guess they worry it will increase SOY spads and similar as the driver may be too busy looking at the screens.

But as posters above have said, it's no different from other dispatch- with mirrors or platform monitors as soon as the train moves you can no longer see the platform and if you get the RA then it can't be taken back easily. They only way you can see the platform once moving us to have a guard stick his/her head out the window but even that is dependant on platform curvature.

 

[Sadsmileyface]

Several reasons.

3. Where there is Driver Only Operation, ScotRail are fined £500 per service which departs without a Ticket Examiner on board.

Nope.