Should we have DOO?

[Bellbell]

Exactly what I said. But yeah I got told I have the intellect of a 7 year old, by some mature member who should really know better!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the railway is a strange, old fashioned institution to those who don't work on it (and probably to most of us who do ) and perhaps it's hard to truly understand things like the way ASLEF will no doubt react in future to the introduction of DOO if you don't work in the industry. They won't go DOO without more money, as so many others have said.

Sadly I'm resigned to DOO, eventually, but I think it will be a long time coming in some areas. Just hope my patch is one of those areas.

 

[Moonshot]

I'm curious: those of you in favour of DOO, would you still actively support its introduction if there was no cost reduction for passengers?

But there is very little chance of a cost reduction to passengers anyway irrespective of whether DOO is implemented nationwide or not......and the reason for that is that its Government policy to have the fare payer share a higher burden of the industries costs.

 

[Bill Stanier]

I didn't say that the decision is not the DfT's.

I imagine that the stats, if not already collated by some body or other, are held by each TOC at their traincrew depots or performance management teams in the form of internal safety records. However, whether or not this information is provided to the DfT is unknown. I imagine that if you submitted enough FOI requests for information regarding safety of the line (SOL) incidents broken down by traincrew depot together with information on passenger harm you may begin to get a picture, but to ensure that your results are statistically significant you would need ensure a very high response rate and then normalise your findings using statistical analysis tools to give a true picture.

What I would postulate is that the DfT are not interested in this information and are making this decision based solely on a cost basis. They have committed themselves to a path that they cannot now get themselves off. They are driven to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and I imagine that they are quite content to allow for an erosion of safety standards and an increased level of risk to passengers. I would argue that this is not an acceptable position from which to make a decision like this. The recently published RSSB report suggests to me that actually we're getting things about right just as they are now.

What is beginning to rankle with me is that you refuse to accept that there is another side to this argument. You want hard stats but none are publicly available in the form that you desire but you won't accept anything else and certainly nothing that you would class as "anecdotal". I'm not sure on what basis you're convinced that DOO is an adequately safe method of working; presumably just the lack of any rail crash news on the 10 o'clock news. That is not a very good source and, anecdotal or not, people who work on the railways are very aware of what is going on around them. Anyone who has to sit through the Red series of videos on their regular safety brief will know that there are incidents happening all the time. I know about the times when an 8 car train has stopped at the 4 car board and the doors been released (I've even seen the CCTV footage of passengers holding the doors open and jumping down onto the track). I know about the driver who stopped at a red signal and, on impulse, released the doors even though there was no platform and the train was on a high brick viaduct. I know about the driver who released the doors on the wrong side of the train. I know about all of these incidents and more that have happened on DOO lines even though they have not made the news. May I ask, what do you know?

Can you see the paint now?

O L Leigh

No I can't! Painting you into a corner implies some slight of keyboard to tie you up in complex arguments. I certainly have NOT done that.

And neither have I said that DOO is perfectly safe, or that it is even cheaper. Or that is the way to go - that's up to TOCs and / or DfT.

What I have said is:

1) DOO has been around long enough for meaningful stats to be gathered, even if they are not openly available.

2) TOCs or DfT who decide whether or not to introduce DOO will have those stats and those stats will inform that decision.

3) If DOO was unsafe it's unlikely it'd have remained in use for so long. For the last several years we have had an amazingly safe railway. Some would argue too safe as safety costs money and if rail is too expensive it will decline in favor of road, which is very, very unsafe in comparison to rail. Better to have the public travelling on a slightly less safe, but affordable, railway than to drive them onto the dangerous roads.

But that's not to say DOO is less safe than no DOO. I don't know whether it is or isn't. Only the folk who have the stats know that.

And tempting though it might be to say "I saw this awful thing on a safety video and it was down to DOO so DOO is bad" it really cuts no ice because there could well be a shedload of similar incidents in a non-DOO environment. Even if you personally haven't come across them.

That's why decisions are not made on anecdotal evidence, but on hard facts - hard data!

I say again, where's the paint?

 

[Tomnick]

I don't think anyone, at least anyone who knows what they're on about, could convincingly argue that DOO is safer than conventional operation, and I'm confident that the stats would support that. The question would seem to be whether the cost saving (if any, overall) justifies the reduction in safety and potential loss of other aspects of the service.

 

[Bill Stanier]

I don't think anyone, at least anyone who knows what they're on about, could convincingly argue that DOO is safer than conventional operation, and I'm confident that the stats would support that. The question would seem to be whether the cost saving (if any, overall) justifies the reduction in safety and potential loss of other aspects of the service.

If the stats support that you might be right. But whether the stats do or not, since they are not available to us, can only be a 'best guess'.

 

[Tomnick]

It's not all about the stats - any change to the method of working will have to be risk assessed, which is a process largely based on what could go wrong, rather than what has (or hasn't) gone wrong elsewhere. After all, many of the risks will be specific to a given location (or at least differ between locations) rather than applying in equal measures generally. That's where we can have a meaningful discussion, at least in approximate terms, and I'm struggling to think of many aspects of the operation where the risk under DOO would be lower!

 

[68000]

I don't think anyone, at least anyone who knows what they're on about, could convincingly argue that DOO is safer than conventional operation, and I'm confident that the stats would support that. The question would seem to be whether the cost saving (if any, overall) justifies the reduction in safety and potential loss of other aspects of the service.

I believe it is as safe. It is not a simple black white more or less safe

 

[carriageline]

I believe it is as safe. It is not a simple black white more or less safe

Regardless if it's more of less safe, it has more chance for disaster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beveridges]

DOO is many times safer than the dangerous roads.

 

[Bill Stanier]

DOO is many times safer than the dangerous roads.

Ain't that the truth.

Taking a wide (i.e. not just a railway-centric) view of transport safety, we need to get more people off the roads and onto rail. That can only be done by reducing the cost of rail, even if that means making rail a little less safe. And of course it's by no means a given that DOO is less safe - it seems to have worked OK so far where it's been implemented (no pax deaths for many years, and the last one [Greyrigg] on a non-DOO train).

 

[Tomnick]

I believe it is as safe. It is not a simple black white more or less safe

I believe that there's more chance of going wrong. That's not to say that all aspects of the operation are safer under conventional working - as you say, it's not black and white, and there are many opposing factors at play. I can't believe that some procedures that require two (or more) people to carry out under conventional working (allowing one to make a mistake without immediately causing a dangerous situation) can be carried out equally safely single-handedly, especially when some of those procedures have been specially revised in the past to transfer some of the responsibility to that second person. Dispatching a train, and the requirement for all concerned to check that the platform starter is 'off' is a good example. The risk is surely greater of stopping short (and not realising), wrong side door opening, general distractions, passengers detraining because no-one is giving them updates during a failure and a few other examples too. Can we have some examples of things that'd be safer under DOO?

 

[Latecomer]

I agree that wrong side door releases are a greater risk.

I would say that if anything untoward happens in that crucial few seconds once the train has started moving out of the platform then DOO is safer in the sense that the driver will (hopefully) pick up the incident in the monitors and instantly brake. The delay for the guard to communicate with the driver and then for the driver to react would likely take a crucial few vseconds more. That's really the only example I can think of though - albeit that drivers observing in-cab DOO monitors certainly have avoided some nasty situations post-dispatch.

Everyone is fallible and I've been given the bat plenty of times that I shouldn't and I've also been given the RA after a situation has become unsafe on a good few occasions. There's a lot to be said for the dispatch procedure not becoming so lengthy that late passengers have more opportunity to do silly things as the train is about to move.

 

[muz379]

Ah, OK. Same logic applies; why would the DfT want it if it wasn't cheaper and workable?


If it's not going to save money (and if it's been around 30 years there should be evidence of savings.. or no savings) why do DfT want it? That doesn't add up.

DfT need to make our expensive railway less costly. If DOO isn't going to help them do this, why do they want it? My guess is it IS cheaper and the 30 years experience has proved that. Why else would they want it?

If the DFT where completely devoted to reducing the costly railway perhaps getting rid of the generous compensation clauses which compensate TOC's for less than expected revenue should be done away with as well ? .

The DFT is just following the lead from the McNulty report where it has been said that DOO is a method that could reduce the subsidy costs associated with the railway . Given that Mr McNulty's area of expertise is aviation and not the railway I think he has overlooked a number of points which I have outlined multiple times yet you havent addressed . This will ultimately mean that it will not result in the cost saving that the DFT envisages .

30 years experience might have proved it "safe" but we cannot gleam anything from the cost saving to be had from it for 30 years of operation because it was introduced in BR days not the privatized rail industry we now have .

Besides the DFT wanting to reduce subsidy is not going to save anything from their spending straight away as they are going to have to spend on investment on the infrastructure and rolling stock in the north to make DOO work here .

but is it really safer to have staff walking along the track with clips & detanators (on lines with 3-minute headways and speeds of up to 100mph, what use is that...?) than have better communication methods to stop trains?

I was talking more about the safety aspect of dispatching trains . whereby the guard at the rear can observe and stop the train if something goes wrong . whereas the driver wont be in the same position .

I agree that in terms of protection you are right using the GSMR is safer than using conventional methods which is why I support expansion of GSMR , however traditional methods need to still be taught and retained in case of catostrophic failure of the GSMR terminal or the whole GSMR network .

 

[68000]

Can we have some examples of things that'd be safer under DOO?

The biggest is full TCB for the service

 

[Tomnick]

I don't understand - TCB can apply whether DOO trains are operating or not.

 

[68000]

Yes they can but they will not be extended to areas that are not DOO due to the cost, the cost savings of going to DOO pay for TCB

 

[Tomnick]

Not the case at all - loads of AB has come out in the last few years to be replaced by TCB (Shrewsbury - Crewe, Ely - Norwich, east of Notts, just for starters) with lots more to follow - no plans for DOO over any of that in the immediate future. Haven't you heard about their grand plans to shove everything into the fourteen (or however many it is now) ROCs?!

 

[O L Leigh]

No I can't! Painting you into a corner implies some slight of keyboard to tie you up in complex arguments. I certainly have NOT done that.

It implies nothing of the sort. All you're doing is simply dismissing everything I'm saying as either being irrelevant or unsubstantiated. You're more concerned about my style of posting than the substance of what I'm trying to impart. Do you find what I'm saying threatening?

And neither have I said that DOO is perfectly safe, or that it is even cheaper. Or that is the way to go - that's up to TOCs and / or DfT.

If you have no particular interest why are you so clearly on one side rather than the other? Why are you so certain that what I'm saying is so irrelevant when you have no idea what your sainted stats might actually show? Are you an industry insider or just an interested party looking in from outside?

What I have said is:

1) DOO has been around long enough for meaningful stats to be gathered, even if they are not openly available.

Yes quite probably, although probably not in the form you'd like. As I have said before, TOCs collect data on SOL incidents.

2) TOCs or DfT who decide whether or not to introduce DOO will have those stats and those stats will inform that decision.

I'd like to believe that they would, but they won't. Again, as I have said before, the decision would appear to be made on the basis of a) cost, and b) political dogma. A course has been set and now the DfT must try to follow it through.

3) If DOO was unsafe it's unlikely it'd have remained in use for so long.

Really...? Again, we're back to cost and political dogma.

For the last several years we have had an amazingly safe railway. Some would argue too safe as safety costs money and if rail is too expensive it will decline in favor of road, which is very, very unsafe in comparison to rail. Better to have the public travelling on a slightly less safe, but affordable, railway than to drive them onto the dangerous roads.

Too safe...? The mind boggles!!

I'm sorry, but that is not how the railway operates. As far as is possible we always try to work towards zero harm and reducing risk in any way we can which is why SOL incidents are taken seriously, lessons learned and good practice disseminated. If the removal of staff from trains, platforms and elsewhere exposes the travelling public and others on and around the railways to greater risk then we have taken a backwards step.

But that's not to say DOO is less safe than no DOO. I don't know whether it is or isn't. Only the folk who have the stats know that.

...and those of us who work at the coalface have a pretty shrewd idea what those stats will show.

But you don't want to know that.

And tempting though it might be to say "I saw this awful thing on a safety video and it was down to DOO so DOO is bad" it really cuts no ice because there could well be a shedload of similar incidents in a non-DOO environment. Even if you personally haven't come across them.

What a fatuous statement. There could, but there aren't. The risks simply aren't the same.

That's why decisions are not made on anecdotal evidence, but on hard facts - hard data!

I'm touched by your faith in our masters to make "the right decision" based on the factors that you and I both think are important. I'm confident that the stats would show that DOO exposes the travelling public to greater risk than fully-staffed services and I would hope that the DfT see that too and turn this juggernaut around before it reaches the point of no return.

However, I will repeat again that I don't share your confidence. This isn't about safety but about cost and political dogma.

O L Leigh

 

[68000]

Not the case at all - loads of AB has come out in the last few years to be replaced by TCB (Shrewsbury - Crewe, Ely - Norwich, east of Notts, just for starters) with lots more to follow - no plans for DOO over any of that in the immediate future. Haven't you heard about their grand plans to shove everything into the fourteen (or however many it is now) ROCs?!

Yes I have, a lot of signallers will lose their jobs in the name of progress. What is so different here?

 

[RPI]

We have to face up to the fact that technology is advancing all the time and DOO isn't unsafe, dwell times will be reduced and the biggest advantage is greater flexibility, with a guard you are dependent on 2 people to turn up in order for a train to run, with DOO you only depend on one.

 

[O L Leigh]

Can we have some examples of things that'd be safer under DOO?

Nope. Can't think of one.

I would say that if anything untoward happens in that crucial few seconds once the train has started moving out of the platform then DOO is safer in the sense that the driver will (hopefully) pick up the incident in the monitors and instantly brake. The delay for the guard to communicate with the driver and then for the driver to react would likely take a crucial few vseconds more. That's really the only example I can think of though - albeit that drivers observing in-cab DOO monitors certainly have avoided some nasty situations post-dispatch.

I would disagree with that. You really don't have to move very far before you lose all vision in the monitors. Even stock with the monitors built-in do not stay on for long enough and one such train was involved in a very bad accident where a passenger fell between the train and platform and was badly injured.

The idea is that the despatcher watches the train until it clears the platform and the guard remains at his panel for the same time. If something untoward is seen the train can be stopped quickly either by giving one on the buzzer (which would elicit a very quick reaction) or, if the guard is in the rear cab, by hitting the emergency brake plunger or putting the brake handle into emergency or, if elsewhere in the train, pulling a passcom. This cannot happen on DOO. Once the train has gone it's gone. It's always been something I was aware of when I worked on DOO routes.

Everyone is fallible and I've been given the bat plenty of times that I shouldn't and I've also been given the RA after a situation has become unsafe on a good few occasions. There's a lot to be said for the dispatch procedure not becoming so lengthy that late passengers have more opportunity to do silly things as the train is about to move.

Perhaps. But mistakes are less likely when you have more pairs of eyes on the ball. Getting the tip against a red is more likely to be caught by a guard than by a DOO driver, especially if they are using "look back" method of despatch.

With a guard you are dependent on 2 people to turn up in order for a train to run, with DOO you only depend on one.

Ironically, my first trip WOULD have been cancelled if it had been a DOO service. The PA handsets in the cabs were defective but luckily the ones at the local door panels in the saloons were working fine. As the guard can use these we were able to run but if it had been DOO the train would have been failed. The PA is a safety system and, if there is no way to talk to the passengers, it is unsafe to run.

But you're talking about rostering, and frankly there aren't any problems there with that. Yes of course there are times when traincrew might be unavailable for some reason, but that's hardly an argument in favour of DOO. DOO services also get cancelled because a driver is not available.

O L Leigh

 

[455driver]

We have to face up to the fact that technology is advancing all the time and DOO isn't unsafe, dwell times will be reduced and the biggest advantage is greater flexibility, with a guard you are dependent on 2 people to turn up in order for a train to run, with DOO you only depend on one.

How will dwell times be reduced?
Any DOO train will just sit in the platform until the driver is 100% sure that everyone is well away from the train which will be quite a while as the driver will have a comparatively poor view of the complete train.
The fastest way is for the guard to have full control of the doors and use their whistle to gee the passengers along a bit rather than let the the passengers queue up and slowly board the train as they see fit, plus the guard will also have a much better view of the train so will be able to close the doors and despatch the train that bit quicker.

You can use all the computer simulations etc you like but the best way in the real world is still the mark one eyeball preferably in the middle of the train where the best view is (normally) available and the only person that can be in that position is the guard.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes of course there are times when traincrew might be unavailable for some reason, but that's hardly an argument in favour of DOO. DOO services also get cancelled because a driver is not available.

Which is normally caused by a shortage of guards* due to the company not filling vacancies and then relying on the other staff to work their days off to cover.

* other grades are available because this trick (to save a few quid) is endemic across the industry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If something untoward is seen the train can be stopped quickly either by giving one on the buzzer (which would elicit a very quick reaction)

Actually 2 responses, one of which requires a change of undercrackers!

 

[O L Leigh]

Always carry a spare set of grits for just this eventuality.

O L Leigh

 

[Bill Stanier]

It implies nothing of the sort. All you're doing is simply dismissing everything I'm saying as either being irrelevant or unsubstantiated. You're more concerned about my style of posting than the substance of what I'm trying to impart. Do you find what I'm saying threatening?

Threatening? How odd! Don't be ridiculous. I have no axe to grind here, other than as a taxpayer and a supporter of rail. I want to see the railway run as efficiently as possible so a) it won't go away and b) it will grow.

If you have no particular interest why are you so clearly on one side rather than the other? Why are you so certain that what I'm saying is so irrelevant when you have no idea what your sainted stats might actually show? Are you an industry insider or just an interested party looking in from outside?

As I said, I have no direct interest. I don't work for the railway, never have, I'm just a user of the system (no more than that) that wants to see it grow, not get killed off by government because it (the railway) insists on retaining outdated practices which cost too much. I don't know whether DOO is cheaper or not (as I've already stated) but it has to stand or fail on cost verses effectiveness.

Too safe...? The mind boggles!!

To me, that demonstrates you haven't though it through. There is a cost to safety, and it has to be pragmatic (we don't live in a perfect world).

If airliners were designed to be as safe as possible, every row would have an emergency exit. So you could only fit 2/3 of the number of seats in, and the increased weight of the fuselage strengthening around the many exit doors would mean a B737 would maybe carry half the pax it currently does. It would be as safe as you could design an airliner, but it would be too expensive to put into service.

I'm sorry, but that is not how the railway operates. As far as is possible we always try to work towards zero harm and reducing risk in any way we can which is why SOL incidents are taken seriously, lessons learned and good practice disseminated. If the removal of staff from trains, platforms and elsewhere exposes the travelling public and others on and around the railways to greater risk then we have taken a backwards step.

Admirable, but so does the aviation industry. But pragmatism must rule!

But you don't want to know that.

Never, in this thread or anywhere else, have I expressed a view as what the stats will show. I've merely said that with 30 years of stats there will be a picture, and given the safety record of the railway (which includes DOO) that picture will probably be OK.

What a fatuous statement. There could, but there aren't. The risks simply aren't the same.

Take out your obvious emotion, and of course it's not a fatuous statement. These decisions are not made on emotion (quite rightly), they are made on hard evidence.

I'm touched by your faith in our masters to make "the right decision" based on the factors that you and I both think are important. I'm confident that the stats would show that DOO exposes the travelling public to greater risk than fully-staffed services and I would hope that the DfT see that too and turn this juggernaut around before it reaches the point of no return.

Maybe. We'll see.

However, I will repeat again that I don't share your confidence. This isn't about safety but about cost and political dogma.

Not political dogma, but cost... yes, that's an important factor. The railway doesn't exist in a perfect world of subsidy, it has to constantly prove why taxpayers should foot its bills and as such it has to realise that it MUST cut its costs. The railway we have today is too expensive, and it does itself no favors by being so. If it is to grow (which is what I want) it has to 'get real'.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm so amazed at your reply that I honestly don't know where to begin. Almost everything you've just said shows a total lack of understanding about what's going on here and a contempt towards all of those people here who have tried patiently to explain it to you. My first impulse earlier today was not to waste my time any longer but I decided to persist. Frankly I'm beginning to wish I'd followed that impulse.

What we're looking at here is not a shortcoming in the operation of the railways but a determination by the current administration to repeat the mistakes of the past as previously committed by the British Railways Board, Dr Richard Beeching and the government of John Major. It won't work and has the risk of damaging the industry further because it will undermine public confidence.

This is not about safety or an audit of good practice, nor is it even about pragmatism. It is simply the implementation of the recommendations of a report compiled by yet another bean-counter who has not fully understood the problem. The DfT is ideologically committed to taking this path when there are so many more effective ways of reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

The railways have never been profitable, even up to 60 years ago when virtually everyone and everything that moved in the country went by rail, when wages for railstaff were low and the network was powered by cheap domestically produced fuel. The rail network is an infrastructure asset not a business, just like the road network (which is, with very few exceptions, funded by a 100% taxpayer funded subsidy). It is part of the supporting structure that allows the rest of the economy to function. Our European neighbours understand this and have invested in their rail networks wisely giving them plenty of financial support, and yet successive UK administrations have failed to grasp this concept.

Lets not forget that the impetus driving these changes are nothing to do with fostering or nurturing the railways, nothing to do with securing the future of threatened services, nothing about improving the lot of the passenger or providing better value. It's about attempting to fill in the huge hole in our national finances caused by successive governments failing to efficiently collect the revenues due from individuals and companies and having to borrow excessively in order to meet their spending aspirations. There is a clear and simple solution to this problem, not just for the funding of the railways but also for education, healthcare and other essential services, and all without disadvantaging the taxpayer or the users of any of these services.

Your desire to see the network grow and flourish is laudable, but it has nothing to do with "getting real" or justifying it's existence. The growth in passenger numbers and the reliance on which they place on the service it provides together with the vital importance given by economists to good rail links into key locations for ensuring the competitiveness of the economy as a whole by attracting big business into the UK should be sufficient. Services are improving, frequency and capacity is being increased. But if it is going to grow then it requires more investment and financial support, not less.

So I say again, there won't be any discussion about safety in the corridors of power. They won't be poring over details of SOL incidents to compare DOO against fully-staffed services. They will just press on with this plan in the face of all opposition. Your fares won't go down (in fact, there's a good chance that they could go up even more) and you will be exposed to greater risk, whether from an operating incident or an on-train incident due to the lack of visible staff presence.

And with that, I will now cease to respond to your posts. There really isn't anything more that I can say without needless repetition.

O L Leigh

 

[Carlisle]

Isn't it too early to say with certainty. "DFT is determined to push ahead with this plan" ,if that were so (3 years since Mc Nulty report) by now they would have wanted a commitment to roll out DOO on the entire recently let TSGN contract, other franchises to go/extend DOO where possible , 319s to be fitted now for DOO before going north and TPE 350s to have been delivered new equipped ready for DOO service etc etc. With no action so far in the past 3 years I can only assume DFT is only very Luke warm over the whole idea , yes they may eventually decide to push ahead or just as likely may end up changing their minds completely, should all be a lot clearer in 2 or 3 years time how much change is actually going to happen

 

[Tomnick]

Yes I have, a lot of signallers will lose their jobs in the name of progress. What is so different here?

You were trying to justify DOO on the basis that it, in turn, would justify increased conversion to TCB - I was pointing out that Network Rail is already working almost as fast as it can to convert AB lines to TCB without the 'incentive' of DOO.

It's rather more difficult to argue against the resignalling projects on safety grounds - that's probably the main difference between the two - although there are valid concerns (which have been mentioned in at least one RAIB report) over excessive workload on some of the new workstations. This isn't the place for that discussion though.

 

[TheEdge]

For those who love DOO and believe it to be safe I would like to give a simple example. Lets assume that rural lines start moving to DOO. At most rural stations I bet the DOO equipment would be a mirror, no CCTV and using older stock like 170s which can run DOO.

Train with guard is dispatched, as the train starts moving passenger runs for the train, slips and falls against the train. The guard sees this, hits the emergency stop, passenger has a dented ego and a bruised face.

DOO train dispatches. Driver checks mirror, all is clear, moves off, passes mirror, person runs for train, slips, falls against train, driver has no idea, passenger goes between train and platform and is killed.

How is DOO as safe as traditional again?

 

[Bill Stanier]

OL, I have noted from your early posts that you are a dyed-in-the-wool railwayman which is fine, but it seems to have robbed you of the ability to see the 'big picture' outside the rail industry.

The railway IS a business whether you want it to be or not. It's never going to make a profit, but that doesn't stop it being a business. The payback from a railway isn't to be found in the fare box, but as you say in its enabling the country to function effectively by providing an efficient transport system. That doesn't mean it's immune from pressure to improve efficiency; probably the reverse! It's funded by the taxpayer and these days public money is in very short supply, so there is great pressure on rail to reduce costs.

One way of reducing costs is do what BR did - shut lines, implement single-tracking, take out junctions and signalling.

A better way is to take out cost in the form of expensive practices. As I said, I've no idea if non-DOO is an expensive practice but if it is, and if it's been proved the railway can work perfectly OK with DOO, then DOO will inevitably be implemented. Why wouldn't it be?

We have an amazingly safe railway with no pax fatalities for several years. And one might note that the last one (Grayrigg) was on a non-DOO train.

 

[O L Leigh]

Isn't it too early to say with certainty. "DFT is determined to push ahead with this plan" ,if that were so (3 years since Mc Nulty report) by now they would have wanted a commitment to roll out DOO on the entire recently let TSGN contract, other franchises to go/extend DOO where possible , 319s to be fitted now for DOO before going north and TPE 350s to have been delivered new equipped ready for DOO service etc etc. With no action so far in the past 3 years I can only assume DFT is only very Luke warm over the whole idea , yes they may eventually decide to push ahead or just as likely may end up changing their minds completely, should all be a lot clearer in 2 or 3 years time how much change is actually going to happen

Click.

O L Leigh