Should we have DOO?

[ExRes]

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...

Senior managers .......

 

[Bill Stanier]

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...

You pay enough to get the right people for the job. Pay over the odds, you're wasting money. Pay under, and you won't get the calibre of person you need.

Like many things in life, it's a balance.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

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

*runs*

If you think how many people apply for a guards position and actually get it, combined with the responsibilities and knowledge involved then YES!

 

[rmt4ever]

I'm all for guards. People on here say drivers are all for guards.. If that was true, during the recent RMT LOROL guard strikes to stop DOO, why did many drivers book on as usual?? When guards were out fighting for their jobs. We now have a completely DOO LOROL ....

 

[ANorthernGuard]

£££££££££££££

Thats all that needs saying

 

[Bill Stanier]

If you think how many people apply for a guards position and actually get it, combined with the responsibilities and knowledge involved then YES!

If people are queuing up to be employed as guards, one has to ask "how many of them can do the job, and how many would like to be a guard but are not up to it?".

If it turns out that there are a lot of applicants for every vacancy who would be capable of being effective guards if employed, that's an argument that the railway is paying too much for the job. They could pay less and still attract suitable candidates.

After all, if you wanted someone to build an extension on your house you would not necessarily give the job to the builder who submits the cheapest quote. But you would give it to the the cheapest quote from a builder who you judge (perhaps by recommendation from friends) to be competent. You certainly wouldn't pay more for a competent builder than you need to!

 

[ANorthernGuard]

If people are queuing up to be employed as guards, one has to ask "how many of them can do the job, and how many would like to be a guard but are not up to it?".

If it turns out that there are a lot of applicants for every vacancy who would be capable of being effective guards if employed, that's an argument that the railway is paying too much for the job. They could pay less and still attract suitable candidates.

After all, if you wanted someone to build an extension on your house you would not necessarily give the job to the builder who submits the cheapest quote. But you would give it to the the cheapest quote from a builder who you judge (perhaps by recommendation from friends) to be competent. You certainly wouldn't pay more for a competent builder than you need to!

what an absolute load of b**locks
Please enjoy your race to the bottom

 

[Bill Stanier]

what an absolute load of b**locks
Please enjoy your race to the bottom

Rather than being rude, can you explain why you disagree? Please enjoy your overpriced house extension!

 

[O L Leigh]

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?

I think we already dispelled that myth with logic rather than emotion. There have been quite a few DOO-related incidents that have compromised safety and could potentially have lead to a number of injuries and, just possibly, deaths. There have been strandings and break-outs from DOO services following dewirements.

Shall I go on...?

O L Leigh

 

[Bill Stanier]

I think we already dispelled that myth with logic rather than emotion. There have been quite a few DOO-related incidents that have compromised safety and could potentially have lead to a number of injuries and, just possibly, deaths. There have been strandings and break-outs from DOO services following dewirements.

Shall I go on...?

O L Leigh

Yes. Please do. In fact in view of your post, I think you should as it doesn't stand up as stated. It only talks about DOO incidents. Have there been none at all with guard-equipped trains?

Can you make a case, with stats, that shows that DOO trains have proved to be any less safe than trains with guards?

That's what this debate is about.

 

[yorkie]

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!

Agreed. I've felt safe on the Strathcylde DOO trains and they have the most visible staff on any network I've ever known! They don't have to stop their interactions with customers to open/close doors, and they can't hide!

Quite a different experience to the average SWT inner-suburban experience!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes. Please do. In fact in view of your post, I think you should as it doesn't stand up as stated. It only talks about DOO incidents. Have there been none at all with guard-equipped trains?

The most serious recent incident involved a Guard (though I feel the Guard was made a scapegoat and was treated ridiculously unfairly by our lunatic legal system, but that's another story and has been done to death).

Can you make a case, with stats, that shows that DOO trains have proved to be any less safe than trains with guards?

I think both sides could produce stats either way, it's highly subjective. Also when you say "DOO" to me, as a passenger, what really matters is whether there's a visible staff presence rather than the way the train is operated.

If you ask the average passenger if they think their train is "driver only", chances are many passengers would - incorrectly - think SWT inner suburbans are (as the guards are often not patrolling the train) and Strathclyde electrics (where ticket inspectors patrol the train and can't hide in the cabs) aren't. When in reality the opposite is true.

I can't imagine anyone here would actually want to see a reduction in visible staff presence.

 

[O L Leigh]

Yes. Please do. In fact in view of your post, I think you should as it doesn't stand up as stated. It only talks about DOO incidents. Have there been none at all with guard-equipped trains?

Can you make a case, with stats, that shows that DOO trains have proved to be any less safe than trains with guards?

That's what this debate is about.

This is what I hate about this forum. You know that it's impossible to provide stats about SoL incidents because these are not publicly available, and so you will never be satisfied with any answer that I give.

So here's what I will tell you. I started at a location where services were all DOO. There wouldn't be many months go by without someone stopping at the wrong place on the platform and releasing the doors, releasing the doors on the wrong side or even releasing them where there was no platform. That's not even mentioning all the other things happening within the train such as vandalism, smoking, anti-social behaviour, drunkenness, etc, etc, etc that go undetected because there was no-one there to see, report or deal with it.

I now work at a TOC where DOO does not exist. In the two years I've been there I am aware of only one occasion where the doors were released when the train was not fully platformed, and that was on stock where the doors were under the control of the driver rather than the guard. I might have been victim of this myself if the stock I drive was run on DOO principles, as I've been prompted twice by the conductor to move along the platform a little further.

But then, as I said, you won't accept that.

Then there are all the times where a driver has been incapacitated. There have been trains roll down embankments or strike an obstruction squashing the cab flat or where a driver has been seriously injured when vandals drop a heavy object off a bridge or some other vantage point and entering the cab. All of these are real incidents. Luckily none of these have happened to DOO services. Yet. But if this was to happen I wonder what effect it might have.

Is this the sort of railway network that you want to have? Contrary to what you and others have argued, it won't be any cheaper and neither will be as pleasant or safe.

O L Leigh

 

[ac6000cw]

I think we already dispelled that myth with logic rather than emotion. There have been quite a few DOO-related incidents that have compromised safety and could potentially have lead to a number of injuries and, just possibly, deaths. There have been strandings and break-outs from DOO services following dewirements.

Shall I go on...?

O L Leigh

The question is if the presence of just one other railway person on the train would have made any practical beneficial difference to the outcome of those incidents, then quantifying if that benefit versus the ongoing cost is worth it ?

 

[scotsman]

I have it on good authority that Strathclyde is the area of the ScotRail network with the most operating incidents...

 

[LowLevel]

Because sir, 'respect the frontline' is a business mantra oft repeated right up until you decide you want to get shot of some jobs or costs. Then it goes straight out of the window. If every driver in the country signed a petition saying 'I don't want this' then you'd still get people saying 'must be safe, has been happening for years'.

Unlike a lot of the people I am assuming are commenting, I know a driver who has been trapped in their cab following a collision and I've provided first line chain of care while waiting for a manager to one who nearly hit someone, didn't actually do it but still had a very near miss and went to pieces. I've also had to buzz drivers who have stopped short and tonight I responded to a passengers enquiry about an occupied toilet and found a bloke unconscious inside the locked toilet I had to deal with.

I've wrote paragraph after paragraph about DOO and it's pitfalls from personal experience but all that ever comes back is 'it happens elsewhere'.

I'm giving up now but not without saying I do not wish to be a ticket examiner on a DOO train, regardless of what some know it all thinks a ticket examiner at my TOC is on over 20 grand plus commission to a guards 26 grand plus commission and as I have access to the RMT pay agreements database that is a fairly reasonable comparator nationwide. People from all grades I am aware of, including my TOC's safety team hate the idea.

Drivers who have driven both types of train offer opinions but they are just ignored or declared to be wrong despite them being the only ones who truly know the score.

DOO trains involved in major incidents have been lucky until now (someone in the back cab at Ladbroke Grove and the fact the rear vehicle not the front slammed into Potters Bar station) but at some point soon luck has got to run out and apart from Great Heck where the guard was killed outright with the driver it is rare for them to be called ineffective.

It is extremely irritating to effectively be called a waste of money by people when you see the effect you and others have on the railway day in day out.

 

[O L Leigh]

The question is if the presence of just one other railway person on the train would have made any practical beneficial difference to the outcome of those incidents, then quantifying if that benefit versus the ongoing cost is worth it ?

And the answer to that is "yes". It would have freed up the driver to deal with the train and getting help while the guard dealt with the passengers. On a DOO service the driver has to do everything on their own. If they're in the cab talking to the signaller or control then he can't be supervising the passengers and ensuring their safety.

How do you put that into a cost/benefit analysis? How can you put a price on it? I think that would be like nailing jelly to a tree. But given that the removal of guards won't actually reduce the subsidy provided by government to the TOCs, all that you'll do is make the railways worse for no benefit whatsoever.

O L Leigh

 

[muz379]

Your not just paying guards so much for the fun of it or just to attract the right candidates . you also want to retain decent people , when you spent potentially 6 months training and up to 12 months recruiting someone for a role you dont want them to do the job for only 6 months then move onto bigger and better things . Same reason you pay drivers so much you dont want 3 years training to go down the pan

Im a realist , im relatively new to the railway and still pretty young by all accounts , I knew when I took the job that I would not retire from being a Guard , I know that the grades time is numbered . I dont agree with that but I have accepted that even if the RMT succeed this time in defending the grade at some point in the future the grade is going to be so dissolved so much that the government and executives/accountants at TOC's get their way and get rid of us .

The DFT's ultimate goal is to reduce the subsidy , nothing more nothing less it is not susceptible to influence from the likes of passenger focus it is being measured by the treasury merely by how much money it can shave off its budged every year


The Key to reducing the subsidy is reducing the operating costs of the franchise so that the government can withdraw subsidy but the TOC can still maintain their profit level by absorbing the surplus between higher and lower operating costs . Even if the Gov succeed in reducing operating costs and therefore subsidy under the privatized model all this means is the TOC will absorb the difference to retain its profit margin meaning no saving will actually be passed on to the passenger.This is all the government wants as they are not actually measured against customer satisfaction on the railway they are measured against how efficient they are in spending our taxes . The TOC's will absorb the difference between operating costs pre and post DOO (if any ) because they have a profit margin to maintain for their shareholders and their shareholders are more important than the passengers . Besides the way TOC's see it is there is no need to reduce fares as the railway is already becoming more and more popular so if anything there is still scope to raise fares .

Anybody that thinks that getting rid of guards in their current format and replacing them with ticket examiners is going to make the railway cheaper for the traveling public or even reduce the government subsidy is kidding themselves for a number of reasons

1) Aslef are going to fight for a hell of a lot more money for drivers for taking on the additional serious responsibility - Think James street . The way Aslef will argue this is that if drivers are going to be opened up to a whole new world of Liability managing the risk at the platform train interface they want money to represent that new responsibility . If you are saying that we should take £5k from the guards salary as a downgrade because they will no longer have responsibility for dispatching the train then we want that £5k for our members .

2) The job dispatchers do is now going to become even more crucial . Currently if a dispatcher makes a mistake(giving the tip against a red as an example) that same mistake has to be compounded by the guard as well in closing their doors after receiving a tip against a red . One of the reasons the dispatchers get paid less than the guards . But under a model where the dispatcher is going to be instructing the Driver directly rather than the driver via the guard the dispatcher will then have more of a say over if it is safe to close doors and RA . Are the RMT likely to let dispatchers take on all of this extra responsibility without arguing for a bigger salary again think James Street , If James street had happened on a DOO railway and the dispatcher had instructed the driver RA rather than the guard as was the case . The Dispatcher would have faced the same level of criminal liability as the Guard did . So Dispatchers are going to also want more money

3) We are going to need more dispatchers under DOO . I can think of locations I work through at the moment that would not be safe if left to driver to dispatch on their own , mainly platforms that have curvature or congestion problems during peak hours . More dispatchers is also going to take more money . Ill also raise the issue of disabled access here as well , Surely every station is going to need a member of staff there during all operating hours to help disabled passengers on and off the train . Surely having someone just sitting at a station all day on the off chance someone might want to come and board the train is more wasteful than having someone who already has to travel with every single train given the ability to board disabled passengers ?

4) Lost revenue , this will depend on if the ticket examiner is required for the train to operate l . If a TE is required for every train to run we are not going to see any massive operating cost saving for the franchise because as I mentioned you are going to be paying the driver more and employing more dispatchers ,unless there is a ticket machine fault , I have to deal with one passenger specifically for some reason or it is too busy/unsafe to do revenue on my train I will get down the train and do revenue(meaning there is little scope for increased revenue taking dispatch responsibility away from me ) all of the issues I have just mentioned that render me unable to do revenue duties are also things that could happen to a TE the difference being when you have a TE and that happens you will effectively be paying them to do nothing at least at the moment I am paid to dispatch the train safely if nothing else what is more productive paying me to do nothing or paying me to dispatch the train . As other people have already mentioned the TE wont have any proper control over what is going on with their train . Currently if I am working and there is an incident that requires emergency service attendance I can hold my train at a station , or if I know I am approaching a major station I can get the someone ready for my arrival .A TE just wont have this degree of control over the operation of the train .Meaning what could start out as a minor incident soon escalates and the person controlling the movement of the train has no idea what is going on . Not to mention a lessened staff presence on trains after a certain time would lead to less normal sober people travelling which again hits revenue .



As for the arguments over the safety of DOO . There is no arguing against the simple logic which dictates that halving the number of safety critical staff required for the train to operate will reduce safety . The most routine area safety is reduced in on DOO is in dispatching the train .

A driver dispatching on their own from the front of the train with a view only on a monitor or in a mirror which he stops looking at or cant see as soon as he is moving is not safer than having a guard at the rear of the train observing the whole train safely out of the platform . Not to mention having someone stood on the platform carrying out the final check after the doors have been closed is much safer than confirming all doors are safely closed and clear of obstruction on a mirror/monitor . Having someone at the rear observing the train out of the platform who can bring the train to a stop if anything untoward happens with the dispatch is safer than having a driver up front focusing on the 4 foot in front of him once his train is moving . Having 2 sets of eyes check the platform starting signal (driver and guard) is safer than having just 1 set of eyes which has previously just been focusing on the PTI .

So lets get this clear in relation to dispatch DOO is less safe than operating with a guard in charge of the dispatch that's without even going into out of course situations where again the guard could play an important role .

The question is are we prepared to compromise and reduce the level of safety on the railway in order to attempt to lower the operating costs ? . I dont think that we should compromise safety that much the platform train interface is one of the most dangerous places on the railway having people trained specifically to deal with that rather than having to deal with it as an afterthought after they have driven the train there seems like a bit of a gamble to me . However I do understand that in the eyes of the government/TOC executives and finance directors reductions in safety can be justified if they save a heck of a lot of money . However I think there is a but the size of a house her

I think we should think very carefully about the actual cost argument for DOO if we are going to implement it because I dont think its possible given the factors above to remove the safety critical role of the guard and reduce the operating costs whilst retaining the same level of service for customers (another important KPI) . And if we make the railway less safe but dont save any money in the process is that not just a massive step backwards practically shooting ourselves in the foot ?

 

[scotsman]

Your not just paying guards so much for the fun of it or just to attract the right candidates . you also want to retain decent people , when you spent potentially 6 months training and up to 12 months recruiting someone for a role you dont want them to do the job for only 6 months then move onto bigger and better things . Same reason you pay drivers so much you dont want 3 years training to go down the pan

Im a realist , im relatively new to the railway and still pretty young by all accounts , I knew when I took the job that I would not retire from being a Guard , I know that the grades time is numbered . I dont agree with that but I have accepted that even if the RMT succeed this time in defending the grade at some point in the future the grade is going to be so dissolved so much that the government and executives/accountants at TOC's get their way and get rid of us .

The DFT's ultimate goal is to reduce the subsidy , nothing more nothing less it is not susceptible to influence from the likes of passenger focus it is being measured by the treasury merely by how much money it can shave off its budged every year


The Key to reducing the subsidy is reducing the operating costs of the franchise so that the government can withdraw subsidy but the TOC can still maintain their profit level by absorbing the surplus between higher and lower operating costs . Even if the Gov succeed in reducing operating costs and therefore subsidy under the privatized model all this means is the TOC will absorb the difference to retain its profit margin meaning no saving will actually be passed on to the passenger.This is all the government wants as they are not actually measured against customer satisfaction on the railway they are measured against how efficient they are in spending our taxes . The TOC's will absorb the difference between operating costs pre and post DOO (if any ) because they have a profit margin to maintain for their shareholders and their shareholders are more important than the passengers . Besides the way TOC's see it is there is no need to reduce fares as the railway is already becoming more and more popular so if anything there is still scope to raise fares .

Anybody that thinks that getting rid of guards in their current format and replacing them with ticket examiners is going to make the railway cheaper for the traveling public or even reduce the government subsidy is kidding themselves for a number of reasons

1) Aslef are going to fight for a hell of a lot more money for drivers for taking on the additional serious responsibility - Think James street . The way Aslef will argue this is that if drivers are going to be opened up to a whole new world of Liability managing the risk at the platform train interface they want money to represent that new responsibility . If you are saying that we should take £5k from the guards salary as a downgrade because they will no longer have responsibility for dispatching the train then we want that £5k for our members .

2) The job dispatchers do is now going to become even more crucial . Currently if a dispatcher makes a mistake(giving the tip against a red as an example) that same mistake has to be compounded by the guard as well in closing their doors after receiving a tip against a red . One of the reasons the dispatchers get paid less than the guards . But under a model where the dispatcher is going to be instructing the Driver directly rather than the driver via the guard the dispatcher will then have more of a say over if it is safe to close doors and RA . Are the RMT likely to let dispatchers take on all of this extra responsibility without arguing for a bigger salary again think James Street , If James street had happened on a DOO railway and the dispatcher had instructed the driver RA rather than the guard as was the case . The Dispatcher would have faced the same level of criminal liability as the Guard did . So Dispatchers are going to also want more money

3) We are going to need more dispatchers under DOO . I can think of locations I work through at the moment that would not be safe if left to driver to dispatch on their own , mainly platforms that have curvature or congestion problems during peak hours . More dispatchers is also going to take more money . Ill also raise the issue of disabled access here as well , Surely every station is going to need a member of staff there during all operating hours to help disabled passengers on and off the train . Surely having someone just sitting at a station all day on the off chance someone might want to come and board the train is more wasteful than having someone who already has to travel with every single train given the ability to board disabled passengers ?

4) Lost revenue , this will depend on if the ticket examiner is required for the train to operate l . If a TE is required for every train to run we are not going to see any massive operating cost saving for the franchise because as I mentioned you are going to be paying the driver more and employing more dispatchers ,unless there is a ticket machine fault , I have to deal with one passenger specifically for some reason or it is too busy/unsafe to do revenue on my train I will get down the train and do revenue(meaning there is little scope for increased revenue taking dispatch responsibility away from me ) all of the issues I have just mentioned that render me unable to do revenue duties are also things that could happen to a TE the difference being when you have a TE and that happens you will effectively be paying them to do nothing at least at the moment I am paid to dispatch the train safely if nothing else what is more productive paying me to do nothing or paying me to dispatch the train . As other people have already mentioned the TE wont have any proper control over what is going on with their train . Currently if I am working and there is an incident that requires emergency service attendance I can hold my train at a station , or if I know I am approaching a major station I can get the someone ready for my arrival .A TE just wont have this degree of control over the operation of the train .Meaning what could start out as a minor incident soon escalates and the person controlling the movement of the train has no idea what is going on . Not to mention a lessened staff presence on trains after a certain time would lead to less normal sober people travelling which again hits revenue .



As for the arguments over the safety of DOO . There is no arguing against the simple logic which dictates that halving the number of safety critical staff required for the train to operate will reduce safety . The most routine area safety is reduced in on DOO is in dispatching the train .

A driver dispatching on their own from the front of the train with a view only on a monitor or in a mirror which he stops looking at or cant see as soon as he is moving is not safer than having a guard at the rear of the train observing the whole train safely out of the platform . Not to mention having someone stood on the platform carrying out the final check after the doors have been closed is much safer than confirming all doors are safely closed and clear of obstruction on a mirror/monitor . Having someone at the rear observing the train out of the platform who can bring the train to a stop if anything untoward happens with the dispatch is safer than having a driver up front focusing on the 4 foot in front of him once his train is moving . Having 2 sets of eyes check the platform starting signal (driver and guard) is safer than having just 1 set of eyes which has previously just been focusing on the PTI .

So lets get this clear in relation to dispatch DOO is less safe than operating with a guard in charge of the dispatch that's without even going into out of course situations where again the guard could play an important role .

The question is are we prepared to compromise and reduce the level of safety on the railway in order to attempt to lower the operating costs ? . I dont think that we should compromise safety that much the platform train interface is one of the most dangerous places on the railway having people trained specifically to deal with that rather than having to deal with it as an afterthought after they have driven the train there seems like a bit of a gamble to me . However I do understand that in the eyes of the government/TOC executives and finance directors reductions in safety can be justified if they save a heck of a lot of money . However I think there is a but the size of a house her

I think we should think very carefully about the actual cost argument for DOO if we are going to implement it because I dont think its possible given the factors above to remove the safety critical role of the guard and reduce the operating costs whilst retaining the same level of service for customers (another important KPI) . And if we make the railway less safe but dont save any money in the process is that not just a massive step backwards practically shooting ourselves in the foot ?

You, Sir: to the pub. I believe a few people owe you drinks.

 

[jopsuk]

History question: When did various DOO areas come in? Has there been much since 1997, or was the majority of DOO working brought in by BR during the late 80s/early 90s?

 

[68000]

I have it on good authority that Strathclyde is the area of the ScotRail network with the most operating incidents...

I have it on good authority that Strathclyde is the area of the ScotRail network which is the busiest and carries the most passengers

 

[HH]

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?

There are other benefits. If a "Guard" doesn't turn up you have to cancel the train. If a TE doesn't turn up you can still run it. Generally DOO trains have better performance than non-DOO (basically the less people involved the faster dispatch is). TEs are easier to roster so you need less of them to do the work. They need less training.

It should be noted that DfT are not looking to go DOO on HSTs or similar. No-one thinks that would work AFAIK.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have it on good authority that Strathclyde is the area of the ScotRail network with the most operating incidents...

It's also the busiest and most congested area. Statements like yours really don't have any viability because you cannot compare Strathclyde with the rest of the Scottish Network in operational terms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do you put that into a cost/benefit analysis? How can you put a price on it? I think that would be like nailing jelly to a tree. But given that the removal of guards won't actually reduce the subsidy provided by government to the TOCs, all that you'll do is make the railways worse for no benefit whatsoever.

There's two points here. Firstly the Government clearly does put a price on it. Their view is that we have an extremely safe railway (weren't we at number 2 on the last set of data?) and therefore the need to cut cost is more important than the potential cost of not having a Guard on board.

Secondly, removing the guards DOES reduce the subsidy (or increase the premium) provided by (to) the government. Unless, that is, it was not in the franchise bid, but done afterwards by the TOC to save money. That is not the case for any DOO that I'm aware of - all have been done with DfT's agreement and with a benefit to the Premium or Subsidy.

DfT would hardly be pushing DOO if there was nothing in it for them.

 

[Tomnick]

There are other benefits. If a "Guard" doesn't turn up you have to cancel the train. If a TE doesn't turn up you can still run it. Generally DOO trains have better performance than non-DOO (basically the less people involved the faster dispatch is). TEs are easier to roster so you need less of them to do the work. They need less training.

It should be noted that DfT are not looking to go DOO on HSTs or similar. No-one thinks that would work AFAIK.

How often are trains cancelled because no Guard is available? When it does happen, how often is it because the TOC is deliberately keeping vacancies open, relying on overtime to keep the job running, to cut costs and increase their own profits?

DOO dispatch might be quicker (the time saving equating to no more than the time taken by the Guard to return to and close his local door), but how much time will be lost by passengers all queuing to use a single door, putting cycles on the wrong part of the train, needing assistance - the sort of thing that Guards deal with efficiently to minimise dwell time?

Less training is a good thing?!

 

[sd0733]

Just had this link through from a colleague to an article about this matter. Summarises everything people have said pretty well:
http://mancunian1001.wordpress.com/...n-why-driver-only-operation-just-wouldnt-doo/

 

[Olaf]

I'm playing devil's advocate here but if a bus driver can supervise and safely close three sets of doors on a bendy bus, why can't a train driver do the same for four sets of doors on a two-car DMU?

I think we have past the point were there was any question about DOO on the railways. We are now at the point were we can look at automating the operation of the trains taking human intervention out of the process and have staff on board purely to focus on customer service. It will take a while to adopt this approach on existing railways but this should form part of the strategy for future periods.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On a bendy bus..Other traffic would go around you or diverted if they saw you had a accident..in the case of a emergency such as derailment the driver would stay with the train and the conductor would go and lay track circuit clips and detonators in order to stop other trains causing a collision or vice versus . (Just one of the examples)

If the system controls the vehicle movements, why would you need to do this?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No No, No, No.
DOO must not happen - certainly not on heavily used commuter lines such as the one I work on. I believe that if my TOC did try to introduce DOO, they'd find themselves with a mass walkout of ASLEF members. It was tried once before on a twenty mile stretch of the line. Drivers refused to move the train without the Guard. It lasted a whole morning.

Lower paid, customer facing staff can perform the same safety duties if still applicable - cf. airliner cabin crew for instance.

 

[notadriver]

You wouldn't dream of a ship or commercial aircraft operating with only one member of staff on board and yet supporters of DOO would encourage a train capable of carrying up to 1000 passengers at the highest speeds any land vehicle is permitted to operate to only have one member of staff!

Regarding lower paid staff - if a lower paid grade were introduced what should their working hours and salary be ? How would the same high standards maintained by guards now be kept up ? And how would the potential animosity between the new grade working longer hours for lower pay and highly paid drivers working less hours be kept under control?

 

[O L Leigh]

I think we have past the point were there was any question about DOO on the railways. We are now at the point were we can look at automating the operation of the trains taking human intervention out of the process and have staff on board purely to focus on customer service. It will take a while to adopt this approach on existing railways but this should form part of the strategy for future periods.

If the system controls the vehicle movements, why would you need to do this?

Lower paid, customer facing staff can perform the same safety duties if still applicable - cf. airliner cabin crew for instance.

We had all this out before. Click. Lets not confuse this discussion with talk about driverless trains.

O L Leigh

 

[Olaf]

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

It helps to minimise price increases and allows for greater re-investment in the service. If the head-count reductions are big enough to drastically reduce costs then this will feed through to ticket price reductions as in teh airline industry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We had all this out before. Click. Lets not confuse this discussion with talk about driverless trains.

O L Leigh

On contrary, it is applicable given that the OP is a couple of decades behind the times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

If you reduce the on-train staff by 50% that feeds through as a significant cost reduction to the operator.

 

[notadriver]

It helps to minimise price increases and allows for greater re-investment in the service. If the head-count reductions are big enough to drastically reduce costs then this will feed through to ticket price reductions as in teh airline industry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




On contrary, it is applicable given that the OP is a couple of decades behind the times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




If you reduce the on-train staff by 50% that feeds through as a significant cost reduction to the operator.

Again you're sadly deluded if you think lowering staff numbers by eliminating guards will lower ticket costs. The airline industry model does not apply to trains. Costs can be reduced on the network rail side - that is by far the largest cost to the railway.

Driverless trains decades away. This discussion is about DOO which might be rather more imminent.

 

[Olaf]

... 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.

How exactly is that relevant if the passenger is tracked through their journey with a smart card? There is no need for staff to inspect the ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Again you're sadly deluded if you think lowering staff numbers by eliminating guards will lower ticket costs. The airline industry model does not apply to trains. Costs can be reduced on the network rail side - that is by far the largest cost to the railway.

Driverless trains decades away. This discussion is about DOO which might be rather more imminent.

Staff costs make up a significant proporting of total cost of any business. A 50% reduction in on-board staff will allow signicant reduction in the cost to teh passenger.

The airline industry is applicable.

The technology for driverless trains are here already.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

People with those sort of opinions are usually the first out the door in any modernising industry.

 

[313103]

I'm all for guards. People on here say drivers are all for guards.. If that was true, during the recent RMT LOROL guard strikes to stop DOO, why did many drivers book on as usual?? When guards were out fighting for their jobs. We now have a completely DOO LOROL ....

Very good point and very true, I only managed to convince one driver into not crossing our picket line. Sadly even the local reps in Aslef crossed that same picket line, one of them even working a rest day!

People are different in what they say and what they do, one of those Aslef reps even posted guidance to drivers about crossing a Rmt picket line to the effect that they would not face disciplinary action. Sadly in these circumstances people will think more about what they want today rather then the consequences of tomorrow.

As an aside so as to give a fairer view many conductors that worked during that dispute, were not in a union, yet many of them benefited from what the union gained some have even gone driving themselves.