Should we have DOO?

[ExRes]

Ahh the old race to the bottom

What are all of the skilled reasonably well payed railway employees going to do with themselves now that their jobs have been replaced by a GSMR terminal and cctv/mirrors ?

I'm all for keeping as many jobs on the railway as possible, but what about all the other industries whose reasonably well paid employees are now on the dole or filling shelves at Tesco because of computerisation for example, who cares about ex-employees of the motor industry when they can get a car a couple of hundred quid cheaper because it's made by robots, we've all got used to cheaper cheaper cheaper, someone has to pay the price for that

 

[O L Leigh]

Arguments over DOO always seem to come down to dealing with the doors, and yet the role of the guard is so much more all-encompassing.

I had a long stop at a station a while back. I had no idea what was happening back there, but it turned out that the guard was dealing with a drunken and abusive passenger. The guard also spotted that this person had bled all over the toilet and locked it out of use to prevent it being a hazard to anyone else. Control were informed to arrange for the toilet to be cleaned on arrival and the passengers were also advised of the problem and a toilet stop was arranged at the next station. None of this would ever happen on DOO because the driver simply would not know what is going on back there.

Do we need to talk about the preponderance of "low-level" safety incidents such as stop-shorts or wrongside door releases that happen on DOO lines? While it's not impossible that a guard may also make a mistake, having two people on the train reduces the chances enormously. It's pointless saying that it's working safely on certain routes because it doesn't. Most of the worst strandings and break-outs have happened on DOO routes (mostly FCC). It only works because on 9 days out of 10 there aren't any major delays or other problems on the network.

Honestly, haven't we done this topic to death down the years? Must it raise it's ugly head every few months? We never get to reach a consensus and it only deepens divisions. You almost certainly won't find a single member of railstaff who would support the expansion of DOO, and not simply for the reasons of preserving other people's livelihoods. It is not a safe method of working compared to fully-staffed trains, and that's the top and bottom of it.

O L Leigh

 

[ExRes]

How has a 'lower wage bill' improved anything for passengers ?

Maybe their expensive tickets are slightly less expensive because of the lower wage bill, they'd be happy with that thought ...

 

[GatwickDepress]

Anyone who thinks lower wage bills mean lower fares for passenger are only kidding themselves.

 

[muz379]

Maybe their expensive tickets are slightly less expensive because of the lower wage bill, they'd be happy with that thought ...

we all know that this isnt going to happen . The only reason DOO will come about is because of a government drive to reduce spending on the subsidy required to run the railway , this just means that the TOC will absorb the difference if any between staffing costs prior to DOO and staffing costs post DOO so that it can retain its profit margin . The profit margin of a toc at 3% is low enough as it is .

I'm all for keeping as many jobs on the railway as possible, but what about all the other industries whose reasonably well paid employees are now on the dole or filling shelves at Tesco because of computerisation for example, who cares about ex-employees of the motor industry when they can get a car a couple of hundred quid cheaper because it's made by robots, we've all got used to cheaper cheaper cheaper, someone has to pay the price for that

And then when the race to the bottom has been won and there is nobody to travel on this "cheap" railway or in their "cheap" car we will realize what we have done in our drive to make everything so cheap .

 

[notadriver]

I think the people who favour DOO are the same ones who hate ticket barriers. Let's face it having only a driver on a train increases the chances of getting either a free ride or greatly reduced price ticket bought for one stop or using a non existent rail card as there would be noone to check.

 

[O L Leigh]

The only reason DOO will come about is because of a government drive to reduce spending on the subsidy required to run the railway , this just means that the TOC will absorb the difference if any between staffing costs prior to DOO and staffing costs post DOO so that it can retain its profit margin.

Removal of guards and the spread of DOO will not reduce subsidy. Anyone who works revenue, whether or not they also have a safety critical role, pay for themselves. That is revenue that would go uncollected if those positions are removed.

O L Leigh

 

[LowLevel]

What attacks on maintenance staff and signallers would those be?

There's the plans to see as many signallers as possible out of a job in the next decade or two, and the reductions in maintenance staff/"efficiencies" on the direct maintenance side. Meanwhile NR's fancy new signalling/crossing equipment between Ely and Norwich in particular is the bane of the lives of the TOCs and their passengers forced to use it and the other recent commissions down south and in Lincolnshire aren't acquitting themselves brilliantly either.

No one has any faith in the people upstairs to successfully modernise in a sensible and sensitive manner, it's all hamfisted rubbish and not necessarily the best options appear to be chosen for whatever reason.

 

[muz379]

Removal of guards and the spread of DOO will not reduce subsidy. Anyone who works revenue, whether or not they also have a safety critical role, pay for themselves. That is revenue that would go uncollected if those positions are removed.

O L Leigh

Oh I agree with you I was merely pointing out what the prevailing wisdom was at the DFT in their attempt to reduce spending on the railway .

I will be very interested to see the cost plans that bidders for northern and any future TPE franchise put forward for implementing DOO because ASLEF are not going to agree to it on the cheap if they have to agree to it . Then the likes of extra dispatchers and more pay for dispatchers we currently have owing to the increased responsibility and the RMT are obviously going to want to campaign to preserve the number and pay of whatever the new on board revenue grades will be to replace conductors all this will mean little if any savings to the operating costs to the TOC . Not to mention the investment that Network rail is going to have to put in on the infrastructure side of things .There is also required a massive investment in rolling stock up here before you have trains that are fit for DOO

 

[yorkie]

And a higher cleaning bill! A lack of secure feeling and lack of ownership among the passengers..

Does your argument apply to Scotrail's Glasgow electric suburban routes (which are DOO with ticket inspectors) versus SWT's inner suburban routes (which have non-commercial guards, who don't check tickets and may not be visible to passengers)?

Or are you arguing, not against DOO, but against the concept of not having someone patrol the train? That's a different argument altogether!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the people who favour DOO are the same ones who hate ticket barriers. Let's face it having only a driver on a train increases the chances of getting of either a free ride or greatly reduced price ticket bought for one stop or using a non existent rail card as there would be noone to check.

DOO doesn't mean no ticket inspectors.

Guards are not necessarily commercial.

I have never had my ticket checked on an inner suburban SWT service with a Guard, and rarely do you see the Guard on such services. This is in direct contrast to Strathclyde.

It's a completely different argument.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Removal of guards and the spread of DOO will not reduce subsidy. Anyone who works revenue, whether or not they also have a safety critical role, pay for themselves. That is revenue that would go uncollected if those positions are removed.

It depends how it's done.

If the Strathclyde model is introduced, revenue would increase.

If it's done like, say, FCC, that would be a disgrace as you rarely get your ticket checked, and when you do, the grumpy RPIs too often don't get it right.

 

[O L Leigh]

If the Strathclyde model is introduced, revenue would increase.

Then what is the purpose of introducing DOO? You're just swapping one member of staff for another with almost no discernible affect on the wage bill.

O L Leigh

 

[Starmill]

I think the people who favour DOO are the same ones who hate ticket barriers. Let's face it having only a driver on a train increases the chances of getting either a free ride or greatly reduced price ticket bought for one stop or using a non existent rail card as there would be noone to check.

There's often nobody to check/sell tickets as it is. That is entirely the fault of the TOC.

You almost certainly won't find a single member of railstaff who would support the expansion of DOO

This is the only part of your post I disagree with. Maybe the fruitcakes enjoy it here.

 

[O L Leigh]

This is the only part of your post I disagree with. Maybe the fruitcakes enjoy it here.

Based on...?

I and the vast majority of my colleagues do not support the expansion of DOO. How can you disagree with that?

O L Leigh

 

[170401]

It amuses me greatly when the Strathclyde model is upheld as a wonderful vision of DOO, especially where those that are promoting it may have little everyday experience of it.

The truth is it's a horrendous experience for many passengers and staff, particularly at off peak times during evenings and weekends (Try working a Saturday evening Ayr-Glasgow on a sunny July Saturday when half of Glasgow is returning steaming from their 'holidays').
With disruptive passengers, low level crime and non compliance of byelaws it is a haven of antisocial behaviour. Ticket examiners simply do not have the same authority that a guard in control of the train has. And here we come to the crux of the problem and what I believe is partly behind the major drive towards DOO.

A guard in proper control of a train has the ability to hold a service and detrain or wait for police where antisocial behaviour is an issue, a ticket examiner does not. Therefore DOO trains are less likely to be delayed and cause annoyance to the operator. The simple message being the government and TOCs couldn't give a monkeys what's actually happening out there, just as long as their statistics at the end of the month look good.

 

[O L Leigh]

Yes, I did doubt that a ticket examiner would have the same power as a guard to remove any passenger who is unfit to travel. Their purpose is, after all, simply to check tickets.

O L Leigh

 

[scotsman]

The Strathclyde model is an anomaly on the network. The NUR (as it was) insisted that there must be a second staff member on every train, and that requirement has been adapted into the Scottish Government's franchise specification - ScotRail is fined where DOO services operate without a Ticket Examiner.

Yes, Ticket Examiners can (and often do) give excellent customer service, but they cannot make PA announcements - so still no info during major disruption when the driver is busy. They also can't make arrangements for passengers, or assistance if a train has failed. And, should the need arise, they can't do emergency protection.

During major disruption, I was asked to assist in customer service duties - I got all I needed to know from the guard on duty that day. A Ticket Examiner/Revenue Protection Officer/On Board Manger/Whatever They're Called This Week would not have been able to do as much.

If you're ever in doubt as to the value of a guard, try and get caught up in serious disruption.

 

[notadriver]

Hmmm on board managers on the javelins remove passengers and have held trains to have them removed. I think it's all about how it's implemented. The only thing these OBMs don't do is actually operate the doors. I didn't think it could work and the OBM would be a ticket examiner but they are much much more than that.

 

[O L Leigh]

You work the Javelins? Are you sure about the scope of the OBM's role? Are they PTS trained? Can they leave the train to assist with protection of the line if needed?

O L Leigh

 

[scotsman]

Hmmm on board managers on the javelins remove passengers and have held trains to have them removed. I think it's all about how it's implemented. The only thing these OBMs don't do is actually operate the doors. I didn't think it could work and the OBM would be a ticket examiner but they are much much more than that.

As already discussed, door operation is an irrelevancy to this arguement.

 

[notadriver]

You work the Javelins? Are you sure about the scope of the OBM's role? Are they PTS trained? Can they leave the train to assist with protection of the line if needed?

O L Leigh

No I don't work them but I chat with the staff on them. No PTS but trained in protection. Also they are trained on how to evacuate in the tunnel sections of HS1.

 

[notadriver]

As already discussed, door operation is an irrelevancy to this arguement.

So what is the difference between a ticket examiner and an OBM? The latter seems to do so much more than the other including making announcements

 

[scotsman]

No I don't work them but I chat with the staff on them. No PTS but trained in protection. Also they are trained on how to evacuate in the tunnel sections of HS1.

Are you sure? It seems very odd that someone would be trained in emergency protection but not PTS, or are they just trained in how to press the panic button on the GSM-R?

 

[O L Leigh]

No, door operation is not irrelevant to the discussion. It is simply that control of the doors is only one part of the equation and not even the most important one.

If OBMs are not PTS trained then I don't see how their role could include protection of the line. Before anyone pipes up and point out that any member of staff may go on the line in the event of an emergency, this is only for the purpose of preventing death or injury and doesn't include laying protection. So in effect there is virtually no difference between OBMs and TEs as neither are able to carry out the safety critical roles of a guard.

O L Leigh

 

[Carlisle]

(Try working a Saturday evening Ayr-Glasgow on a sunny July Saturday when half of Glasgow is returning steaming from their 'holidays'). .

That kind of environment is going to be equally challenging for any grade of on train staff surely unless assisted by 10 well built and experienced nightclub Doormen or BTP etc

 

[O L Leigh]

Perhaps, but at least a guard has the power to deal with these people if he or she so chooses whereas a TE can only go through and check the tickets.

O L Leigh

 

[notadriver]

Are you sure? It seems very odd that someone would be trained in emergency protection but not PTS, or are they just trained in how to press the panic button on the GSM-R?

Unfortunately I can only go by what they tell me. They are not safety critical and yet have been trained to do protection in the event of an emergency.

Small pendant - Javelins don't have GSM-R not until next year anyway.

Im assuming someone trained in PTS would be have to pass a safety critical medical include eyesight / colour tests ?

 

[alexjames]

I fail to understand why we are having this discussion.

It is entirely obvious to any intelligent railway user that guards on trains (all trains and that includes, inter alia, London Underground/Overground and similar operations) are absolutely essential for passenger safety and wellbeing.

In their absence, all sorts of things can and will go wrong and, as discussed above, the train driver/op will often be unaware of it. In contrast, the guard is generally in a position to do something about it.

The fact that a small minority of guards do not bother to do their jobs properly is utterly irrelevant (their mere presence on a train helps even if they are just lurking in a corner reading the paper). If they can collect some fares so much the better. That job is in any event better left to dedicated staff ie RPI's and similar.

The clowns that oversee the railways, be they DfT officials or TOC executives, do not get the point. A few experiential trips on selected late night services, for example, would concentrate their foolish minds. Particularly so if they stood 10 metres away from their seemingly unaccompanied teenage daughters. If they did, the entire bunch of fools would change their minds immediately. But they won't. And that is because the dunces have little or no consumer experience of the operations that they oversee. And that is just one aspect of what is wrong with the governance of the railways.

 

[scotsman]

Unfortunately I can only go by what they tell me. They are not safety critical and yet have been trained to do protection in the event of an emergency.

Small pendant - Javelins don't have GSM-R not until next year anyway.

Im assuming someone trained in PTS would be have to pass a safety critical medical include eyesight / colour tests ?

They would, certainly

 

[170401]

That kind of environment is going to be equally challenging for any grade of on train staff surely unless assisted by 10 well built and experienced nightclub Doormen or BTP etc

The point is that antisocial behaviours are more accepted and prevalent on the DOO services within Strathclyde than in other areas of Scotland where guards are present. In simple terms, the public generally has more respect for a service operated with a guard than it does where only a TE is (or often isn't) aboard.

Speak to guards on central belt services working out of Glasgow Queen Street for example and they will tell you they can spot passengers who are more used to the DOO network a mile off just by their behaviour and attitude.

 

[O L Leigh]

Unfortunately I can only go by what they tell me. They are not safety critical and yet have been trained to do protection in the event of an emergency.

The detail of the story has changed. Staff can be non-safety critical and yet be PTS trained. Are they PTS trained or not?

Also, if you're familiar with the rules you will be aware that the responsibility for protection of the line rests with the driver and, if required, the guard too under the direction of the driver. No-one else is permitted to carry out protection, not a TE nor an OBM.

With respect, I would tentatively suggest that you've either been misinformed or misunderstood what you've been told or made an erroneous assumption.

O L Leigh