Should we have DOO?

[Class377/5]

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?

Im trained in evacation yet I've not got PTS.

 

[yorkie]

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.....

That says more about those areas, to be honest!

A much better comparison would be SouthEastern High Speed services where the trains share the same tracks with conventional SouthEastern trains. Does the same pattern emerge then? I doubt it!

The idea that passengers behave better if there's a non-commercial Guard in the back cab rather than a ticket examiner patrolling the train seems a strange one to me and does not in any way match my experiences of travelling on SWT inner suburbans vs Glasgow suburban services.

The general public really doesn't know of the difference between the roles and it's really all about staff visibility when it comes down to passenger behaviour/reactions.

If someone wants to misbehave, they're going to do so irrespective of whether the on-board staff are paid a slightly higher wage to have extra responsibilities or not. But the chances of them misbehaving will certainly increase if there's no visible staff presence in the passenger saloons.

 

[313103]

I think I have more experience on this matter then most on here having been made redundant by DOO.

We are only having this discussion because of this barsteward government wanting to drive down every bodies wages, terms and conditions and jobs and then blame the last labour government for it. The fact there is still world wide recession going on is irrelevant in their eyes.

Let me tell you of my experiences of DOO, firstly I was secondman (also sadly gone from the history books) at St Pancras when the first doo passenger trains entered service, at that time the hostility between the two unions at the time meant it was a tit for tat, Aslef didn't care about the Guard (remember 1982 rostering dispute was still very fresh in the minds), the NUR cared even less being in the hands of management. All Aslef wanted was to make sure that drivers got a few quid extra for doing the job, NUr nationally didn't do a thing so the local branches tried to set up a fight, however the Nur lacked leadership and this was doomed to failure (which it was).

In 1993 I was made surplus to requirements after the modernisation of the Chiltern Line and moved to the North London Line. On that line I knew in 1990 the plans British Rail had about the line so when it came it was no surprise (in fact my last ever working on the Chiltern Line was being a Guard on a ballast train at Wembley Stadium).

In 1993 as I said I moved to the North London Line and I spent my time here watching the transformation of what is now London Overground. I did everything I could as a rep to help the change in roles for the guards, that is why if you was ever on my train you saw me inside the passenger area generally looking after people and assisting where possible. Yet that and despite the fact that many of the conductors done the above stop Transport for implementing doo, they say because the investment put in means they not fit for purpose anymore, the conductors who lost there jobs would say it was purely politically motivated and no other reason then to reduce the wage bill.

Sadly some of my former colleagues are still unemployed, some have found work (like myself, but it meant moving 260 miles west of London to find it) and some have left this country to find work.

Am I happy about DOO, no of course I aint and as O L Leigh has previously said you speak and ask many staff and they will tell you the same answer.

We are a ticking time bomb though just because there hasn't been a fatal incident involving only DOO trains where no other member of staff is available, doesn't meant its totally safe.

DOO is being touted about now not because of safety, but because of cost and cost alone. The railways in the private age get more money from government then BR ever did and that is scandalous.

 

[LowLevel]

The thing is, as far as I have seen, there aren't many places where you have trains scudding about at 100 mph with just the driver on the train. Even the most modern TGVs on high speed lines have a guard who dispatches the train abroad.

The actually impact during day to day operation mostly seems to be met with muttering - things like corpses crashing into the cab as happened at Hassocks the other week (I understand 2 Southern guards on the FCC DOO service involved were mentioned in dispatches) or a sudden impact destroying your radio (what if that cement truck that landed on that 455 had squashed the front cab instead) or a lump of masonry taking out the driver straight away? Or even a poorly maintained set of points throwing your train down a bank, or a dumper truck knocking a bridge down in front of you before you can react. Or vandalism smashing your train into a bridge as per Strathclyde.

So much can happen to the driver and DOO supporters just don't seem to get the general gist. They are locked in the cab, they are inflexible, and they're usually the first to be seriously injured or killed in any accident.

No one who actually does the job as train crew who has experienced both methods of working wants it.

As for saying 'it already happens, it can't be unsafe' - who is going to be the person who says 'right, stop the job on all DOO-P services'. Not going to happen.

The public have no idea - the amount of them who seem to think I'm the driver while checking tickets is ridiculous.

 

[SPADTrap]

If the driver isn't expected to deal with such a situation, then why should a guard?

(Both the drivers of 12 coach trains I've seen walking through a train of 1200 generally affable commuters to reset pass comms seemed happy enough)

Probably because the driver is driving the train?

I can assure you any driver operating a 12 car train under DOO certainly DO have worries in the back of their mind.

 

[O L Leigh]

Im trained in evacation yet I've not got PTS.

There is a difference here. Train evac happens in a controlled environment when all lines have already been blocked and there are no train movements to endanger you. Without PTS you cannot go out onto a "live" railway where trains could be whizzing past your ears at up to 125mph.

O L Leigh

 

[plastictaffy]

They are - but you'd never know as they never leave the back cab

Harsh....... I regularly leave the back cab. Most Guards that are on the West Coast do. Those to the north of the network rarely leave the cab as doing tickets on routes such as the Cross City is nigh on impossible, as the 323's on that route can only have the doors operated from the cab and one other point on the train. Makes it difficult when the stops are so close together.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
DOO is a disease that will destroy the role of Guard as we know it. Problem with the staff visibility thing is that those in the upper echelons of management that would like to implement it have no idea of how the job works, exactly what the Guard does and exactly what the Guard is trained to do and is capable of.
I've spoken to passengers before about staff visibility, and they all like the fact that there is visible staff on-board. As long as the RMT will fight for Guards to stay on trains, I will keep shouting about it, too. If someone within my TOC can tell me what the benefits are to DOO, apart from the lower wage bill, (offset by the rife ticketless travel that would take place, of course) I may take the time to listen. Until then, my stance is the same as the RMT's.
No, No, No, No.
That is all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suspect with the attacks on infrastructure maintenance staff, signallers, guards etc all plodding along we could be in for our first national rail strike in a while.

ALL OUT!!!! Sounds good to me!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The current argument however would be more along the lines of what is so special about your 12 car trains that they need a guard whereas the Thameslink 12 car trains don't ?

Because it's the TOC that I work for!! Look after your own!!

 

[sd0733]

On the last safety brief I had a few weeks ago there was a study of 4 of the worst incidents from recent times involving despatch nationally. Obviously there was the James Street incident in it but the other 3 were all major injuries caused on DOO trains, all 3 would have been easily preventable if guards had been despatching the trains. The fact that 75% of these incidents were caused on DOO trains of only 30% of the total implies to me that in its current form its nowhere near as safe as despatch by a guard who can step out etc.

Also, guards are probably one of the most flexible and multi-purpose jobs on the railway and a single journey often includes many roles from ensuring safe and punctual despatch, collecting revenue, dealing with some abusive teenagers through to helping an old lady with her bags etc. It is also one of the very few if not the only operational role on the railway who can pay for itself through collecting of revenue, altough obviously that part is secondary to the safety aspects.

 

[plastictaffy]

Safety Brief.......
Can't remember the last one of those I had.........

 

[Bantamzen]

From a passenger perspective, I would be totally opposed to DOO on any more routes at the very least. I'm not naive enough to believe for a minute that any savings, real or perceived, would ever filter beyond boardrooms & shareholders. In the case of an emergency, two fully trained crew members is far better than one.

I remember many years ago being on a Leeds-bound 333 from Bradford when someone jumped in front of the train somewhere around Appleby Bridge. The driver was obviously highly distressed (it was a fatal collision) & unable to function in his role. Unfortunately the train had come to halt some distance from the nearest road, so it took quite some time for the emergency services, rail staff & a replacement driver to arrive on the scene (if I remember rightly we were stationary for close to 2 and a half hours). In the absence of the driver, the guard stepped up magnificently & made sure he rotated his time between looking after the driver & making sure he was OK, and providing continual updates & reassurance to the passengers who were obviously also concerned (especially as it was mid-evening & dark).

Had it not been for this guard, some passengers may well have taken it upon themselves to de-train & attempt to head somewhere to find alternative transport. This would have been doubly dangerous not only because of the obvious risks of stepping off a train when there remained a risk that another train may be about to pass, but the fields around the area were somewhat flooded & would have been incredibly difficult and dangerous to cross in the dark. So I'm all for all trains having guards, and looking after both the interests of the TOC and the passengers.

 

[Johnny_w]

Can I offer a purely passenger opinion please that has no technical merit.

I like seeing a guard. It gives me enormous comfort factor on a train. The driver is up the front doing what needs doing.

The guard has the train - I like seeing that guard.

Nothing more than that. I hate DOO.

JW

 

[EssexGonzo]

Another passenger perspective.....

I can't remember how long DOO has been in operation on the railway around here - AGA - I live in Shenfield but travel regularly to places like Southend, Colchester and Ipswich by train, as well as most days to Liverpool Street.

As well as peak time commuting I use the trains early in the morning and very late at night - both with and without the prior consumption of alcohol (in the evening that is :roll

I can honestly say, in the many, many years that I've been using these services I've never found myself wishing that we'd had a guard on the train. I'm sure "things" do occasionally happen but we (just about everyone I know commutes to London) just don't hear of incidents, violence, threatening behaviour etc.

And how much passenger visibility can a guard get in a 12 coach train with 3 x 4 car sets anyway? I'm grateful that we see revenue inspectors to catch non-paying scrotes but that has to be on fewer than 1 in 50 trains.

I just don't see what the fuss about DOO is beyond fewer jobs? (And yes - my firm has chopped 25% of jobs in the last 5 years so I'm not denying that as an issue for those affected). Is AGA a fundamentally more dangerous railway? If so, what are the stats and why is it allowed to operate as such?

 

[TheEdge]

I just don't see what the fuss about DOO is beyond fewer jobs? (And yes - my firm has chopped 25% of jobs in the last 5 years so I'm not denying that as an issue for those affected). Is AGA a fundamentally more dangerous railway? If so, what are the stats and why is it allowed to operate as such?

AGA is not more dangerous but DOO carries more risks. The main point, peddled over and over again is that in many big incidents there is a decent chance the driver will be the first (and like most) incapacitated party (think Greyrigg, Ufton Nrevet and countless car vs train or person vs train).

If the only other member of rail staff is a RPI or no one at all there is suddenly a situation where there is no one to take control of the situation.

 

[HH]

It is all about cost, but let's put this into perspective. The government wants the railway to cost less to the taxpayer. With that stipulation then the alternative to reduced cost is higher fares. Without that stipulation it's higher taxes (all things else being equal).

With no major incidents that show a problem with DOO then it's an easy political decision to promote more DOO, which the DfT is now doing unashamedly. Incidents like Merseyrail in 2012 don't help the case for the 'role of the guard'.

You can talk logic until you're blue in the face, but this is the age of the soundbite - how else to explain the extraordinary popularity of the odious Farage?

 

[Greenback]

There are other ways to reduce costs in the system we have, but the government has ideological reasons for removing staff.

 

[alastair]

Can I offer a purely passenger opinion please that has no technical merit.

I like seeing a guard. It gives me enormous comfort factor on a train. The driver is up the front doing what needs doing.

The guard has the train - I like seeing that guard.

Nothing more than that. I hate DOO.

JW

I also like seeing a guard, "seeing " being the operative word. If they hide in the back cab then no-one is going to see them are they?

The difference between my local TOC's is massive. On SWT,the guard always walks through the train,often checks tickets,makes a reassuring announcement,and if on a 444 or 450 train is located in a visible "office".

On the majority of my trips on Southern and FGW you would not even know there was a guard on the train,such is their degree of invisibility.

 

[sd0733]

Exactly, loads of money could be saved all over the place on the railway by cutting out waste without a need for mass redundancies.

 

[Bill Stanier]

It is all about cost, but let's put this into perspective. The government wants the railway to cost less to the taxpayer. With that stipulation then the alternative to reduced cost is higher fares. Without that stipulation it's higher taxes (all things else being equal).

With no major incidents that show a problem with DOO then it's an easy political decision to promote more DOO, which the DfT is now doing unashamedly. Incidents like Merseyrail in 2012 don't help the case for the 'role of the guard'.

You can talk logic until you're blue in the face, but this is the age of the soundbite - how else to explain the extraordinary popularity of the odious Farage?

HH is right; it's about reducing cost. And actually, if you apply logic rather than emotion (think with your head rather than your heart) if DOO has been shown to work in terms of lack of DOO-related incidents (and it seems it has), where's the hard argument for retaining guards?

And Greenback, if there are other opportunities on the railways for making financial savings, those should be addressed as well as, not instead of, DOO.

That's how all businesses work - those that survive, anyway.

 

[Tomnick]

DOO isn't 'safe' in exactly the same way as conventional operation isn't 'safe' - nothing, ever, can hope to be absolutely free of risk. There's no doubt that there's considerably more risk attached to DOO operations - most of it has already been touched upon on this thread - so the question for the accountants is whether the cost saving justifies the increased risk. I remain far from convinced that there will be an overall cost saving, from a subsidy point of view at least, anyway: the reduction of staffing costs won't be significant if each train carries a revenue/customer service bod anyway (yes, they'll be paid less, but how much so?). If the franchise is let on that basis, there'll not be much saving to be had (and if not, why not - do we really want to see regional trains running between, say, Liverpool and Newcastle with no-one but the driver on board for the whole duration?) - though no doubt there'll be provision to allow a train to run without the additional member of staff if necessary - providing a real opportunity for the TOCs to direct improve their bottom line by deliberately running staff numbers down and leaving turns uncovered rather than providing spare cover.

On a wider note, I can't see the general theme of destaffing and pushing for wholesale cuts to pay, terms and conditions ending well. What happens to those left unemployed by the former (joining the ranks of, for example, the supermarket cashiers made redundant by the self-service tills that are continually promoted), especially as railwaymen have a fairly unique skillset that's not easily transferable elsewhere? Those who keep their jobs, but are forced onto a much lower rate of pay - suddenly they have much less disposable income, so their spending decreases, to the detriment of the economy as a whole.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

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

Passengers ? What makes you think the railway is run for their benefit ?

 

[68000]

I have commuted for almost 21 years in the Strathclyde area on DOO trains with no issues. Every journey will have a staff member (ticket examiner) walk through the train (unless too busy to physically walk).

One of the worst passenger experiences I have had on any train was on a Perth to Glasgow service and a stag group were on. No sign of the guard for the whole journey!

 

[Carlisle]

One of the worst passenger experiences I have had on any train was on a Perth to Glasgow service and a stag group were on. No sign of the guard for the whole journey!

I could possibly understand their motives as a serious uncontrolled disturbance on board could well result in the member of staff being injured/suspended and facing possible dissmissal in these H&S obsessed times

 

[Bill Stanier]

Passengers ? What makes you think the railway is run for their benefit ?

The sad thing is, I'm not sure you're joking.... :cry:

Notadriver - what has cost savings done for pax? Kept services operating which would otherwise be axed as unaffordable, that's what.

If we don't have an affordable railway, we'll have a shrinking railway (what will that do for rail jobs?). And perhaps eventually no railway at all.

 

[455driver]

We are a ticking time bomb though just because there hasn't been a fatal incident involving only DOO trains where no other member of staff is available, doesn't meant its totally safe.

just imagine how Ladbroke Grove would have turned out if there hadnt been the Train Manager on the HST and the other staff travelling pass on the 165!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm grateful that we see revenue inspectors to catch non-paying scrotes but that has to be on fewer than 1 in 50 trains.

How much revenue is lost on those other 49 trains then?

 

[plastictaffy]

How much revenue is lost on those other 49 trains then?

I'd be interested to find that out, as it goes. But then, how many punters would admit to travelling without a ticket??

 

[ac6000cw]

The thing is, as far as I have seen, there aren't many places where you have trains scudding about at 100 mph with just the driver on the train.

Peterborough/Cambridge to Kings Cross on GN outer-suburban services (all day, every day since before privatisation). Great Eastern mainline as far as Colchester is DOO (and I'm sure some of that must be 100 mph territory). Thameslink London - Bedford (the first route in the UK to go DOO, back in 1983).

Is that enough examples ?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The sad thing is, I'm not sure you're joking.... :cry:

Notadriver - what has cost savings done for pax? Kept services operating which would otherwise be axed as unaffordable, that's what.

If we don't have an affordable railway, we'll have a shrinking railway (what will that do for rail jobs?). And perhaps eventually no railway at all.

I agree....

 

[Tomnick]

As I, and others, have already said, the cost savings will surely be rather smaller than some seem to think - if each train is to be provided with a revenue bod (as per Strathclyde), then you're only talking £5k/yr for each member of staff. Add in the increased opportunities for delay (faulty DOO equipment, less efficient station duties at a busy platform, passenger assistance), additional maintenance requirements, increased operational incidents (meaning more drivers off driving duties), possibly more stress (drivers off sick) and so on - is it really worth it?

 

[68000]

I don't see why you say 'surely'. I would say there is more than £5k/yr difference between ticket examiner and qualified safety critical guard

 

[Tomnick]

Not around here, I don't think. What's the obsession with paying staff the absolute minimum possible, anyway? You pay peanuts, you know what you get...

 

[Pumbaa]

Conversely, are the Guards worth what they're currently being paid?

*runs*