Should we have DOO?

[TheEdge]

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.

I'm pretty sure Grayrigg had nothing to do with DOO or not.

While I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse I'm sure if the stats for SOL incidents were public you'd feel differently. Remember most SOL incidents don't get into the public domain.

 

[Tomnick]

I agree with the principle that the railway should be looking to make itself more efficient and less costly, but disagree that DOO and other destaffing, generally cutting the quality of service and increasing fares is the way to do it. Why not look at the multitude of contractors and suppliers, each taking their own significant chunk of profit from any project or other activity, knowing that they can get away with charging far more than the normal market rate just 'because it's the railway'? My favourite, recounted to me first hand, was a supplier asking for in excess of £1000 for an item consisting of three components - which, individually (and with minimal assembly required) could be purchased for around £5, £10 at most, from a general hardware retailer (same part numbers and everything). Would the higher powers risk upsetting their friends in big business, though, when the plebs (passengers and staff) are a far softer target though?

 

[Bill Stanier]

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?

'Ang on. Didn't something like that happen in Liverpool a while back? And that certainly wasn't a DOO train!

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence - it can always be out-anecdoted! That's why the DOO decision will be made on facts, not anecdotes.

 

[Tomnick]

'Ang on. Didn't something like that happen in Liverpool a while back? And that certainly wasn't a DOO train!

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence - it can always be out-anecdoted! That's why the DOO decision will be made on facts, not anecdotes.

In that case, the train was brought quickly to a stand by the actions of the Guard - unfortunately it was too late by then, but in slightly different circumstances it might not have been. Under DOO, the train would have merrily continued on its way to the next station, with rather less chance of survival.

No stats, but rather an understanding of the process and an assessment of the risks involved.

 

[Bill Stanier]

My favourite, recounted to me first hand, was a supplier asking for in excess of £1000 for an item consisting of three components - which, individually (and with minimal assembly required) could be purchased for around £5, £10 at most, from a general hardware retailer (same part numbers and everything).

If that is true (and I suspect it's not, by a long chalk) it's an appalling reflection on railway management. In any business, you get the suppliers you deserve. If you are known as a 'soft touch', a lazy ass who just wants an easy life, you will be taken for a ride. If you choose and manage your suppliers effectively they will work in partnership with you to common goals with no-one (you or the supplier) getting ripped off.

I suspect there's far more to the above anecdote than Tomnick was told.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

'Ang on. Didn't something like that happen in Liverpool a while back? And that certainly wasn't a DOO train!

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence - it can always be out-anecdoted! That's why the DOO decision will be made on facts, not anecdotes.

No it wasn't a DOO train. It was someone who took a shortcut that he paid with a long jail term and a girls death. Drivers make mistakes through Fatigue and bad decisions as well. What Happened in Liverpool was an extremely rare occurance which was reflected in the punishment involved.

 

[Bill Stanier]

No it wasn't a DOO train. It was someone who took a shortcut that he paid with a long jail term and a girls death. Drivers make mistakes through Fatigue and bad decisions as well. What Happened in Liverpool was an extremely rare occurance which was reflected in the punishment involved.

Yes, of course I know that, which is why I was a bit surprised at such a similar scenario being postulated by The Edge as to what might happen if DOO is implemented.

 

[Western Lord]

While everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over DOO, what about the obvious alternative, GOO. The technology already exists to automate the driving, so the one member of staff on board will be free to deal with whatever problems the self loading cargo throw up (sometimes literally).

 

[Bill Stanier]

While everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over DOO, what about the obvious alternative, GOO. The technology already exists to automate the driving, so the one member of staff on board will be free to deal with whatever problems the self loading cargo throw up (sometimes literally).

I'm sure that will happen, but the 'G' might not be a guard as we know them. Trains are the easiest form of transport to fully automate.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

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?

Wouldn't the part of the train the person falls against play a part, if they fall against the corridor connection, they might well fall down to track level and be killed. Guard or DOO probably won't make much difference.

Modern stock can accelerate faster, so by the time the train stops it might also be too late.

Also does all stock have at least one window that drops down that the guard could use? If they don't, how would the guard notice it if the person has fallen down low?

 

[68000]

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.

You asked 'Can we have some examples of things that'd be safer under DOO?' I said wider use of TCB as it is a requirement of DOO.

Do you really think that the Government is pumping Billions of ££ into the railway investing in secure radio for everyone and more widespread use of TCB without looking for a return? The signallers will be part of that return and to a lesser extent so will the Guards

 

[O L Leigh]

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.

Nope. I've only worked on the railways for only the last nine years at the age of 31. I have worked before that in various sectors that had nothing to do with the railways. I am perfectly well aware of the wider picture.

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.

I don't disagree with your broad point. What I disagree with is that savings must be made at any cost, even at the expense of a reduction in safety. I also happen to believe that the DfT is going about this in the wrong way because one of the inevitable consequences of reducing staff numbers is that revenue will be depressed.

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

Strange to say, but there is an element of that going on. Planned upgrades are shelved or their scopes cut back and the signalling function is being increasingly centralised into regional control centres.

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?

The problem is, as has been argued already, DOO will not produce the savings desired. McNulty made an erroneous assumption which is that revenue would remain constant, but experience shows that it doesn't. If revenue is to be safeguarded, never mind maximised, you need to have staff to enforce ticketing regulations. So you inevitably move to the Strathclyde model where you replace trains operated by two members of staff with, um, trains operated by two members of staff.

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.

That's not correct. Four passengers died during 2013/14, all in separate incidents on stations. At least one of these four happened at a staffed station (East Croydon) and was not struck by a train but died later of his injuries. Two of them appear to have happened at unstaffed stations and the persons involved were struck by trains (RSSB report). Could it be argued from these stats (hard data) that the removal of staff from stations has had a negative impact on passenger safety.

As to Grayrigg, the service may not have been DOO but the presence of a guard meant that the alert could be raised with Virgin control, information could be provided to the emergency services and assistance rendered to the passengers. The driver of the train had been seriously injured and knocked unconscious for a while. Full accident report.

O L Leigh

 

[Tomnick]

Driverless trains have already been done to death on here, but the technology is far from 'ready' outside the sterile environments of the DLR and deep tube lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sure that will happen, but the 'G' might not be a guard as we know them. Trains are the easiest form of transport to fully automate.

You asked 'Can we have some examples of things that'd be safer under DOO?' I said wider use of TCB as it is a requirement of DOO.

Do you really think that the Government is pumping Billions of ££ into the railway investing in secure radio for everyone and more widespread use of TCB without looking for a return? The signallers will be part of that return and to a lesser extent so will the Guards

That doesn't really show that DOO is safer than its conventional equivalent though - it's no more than a tenuous attempt at justifying something (resignalling) that's happening anyway.

 

[O L Leigh]

That's why the DOO decision will be made on facts, not anecdotes.

Didn't I debunk that already?

O L Leigh

 

[Bill Stanier]

Didn't I debunk that already?

O L Leigh

You might have disagreed with it, but you didn't debunk it. Facts (stats) are the stuff of decision making. Anecdotes make fine telling in the pub but have no place in the decision making process.

 

[O L Leigh]

Then you have failed to grasp what I said. I didn't dispute that the decision would be made on facts. What I said was that the facts that will be considered will not be facts relating to safety but those related to finance.

O L Leigh

 

[Tomnick]

You might have disagreed with it, but you didn't debunk it. Facts (stats) are the stuff of decision making. Anecdotes make fine telling in the pub but have no place in the decision making process.

As I've repeatedly said, for the safety aspect at least, it's not so much about stats as it is about risk assessment. The risks associated with DOO on one combination of line/service/traction aren't the same as DOO in different conditions. Stats relating to the former are therefore irrelevant when it comes to the latter. Knowledge and experience, sufficient to assess the risks properly, are what matters here.

 

[170401]

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.

That's part of the problem most people have with DOO. Whether you agree with DOO or not, no passenger train should ever run without a second member of staff on board.

On Thursday evening this week a DOO train operated form Edinburgh Waverley with no second member of staff on board, as a result of this a wheelchair passenger was removed form the service and put on the next one as no one would have been available to operate the ramp at their destination. Personally I find this an absolutely disgusting way to treat people 'in this day and age'.

 

[Greenback]

I can't dispute that pay has gone up a lot more than in most other industries, but it's also true that other costs have snowballed since the network was privatised. Some of these, like ROSCO's appear to be quite artificial costs that have been imposed, other increases have been caused by increased bureaucracy and more stringent H&S requirements.

And let's not forget that the interfaces between all of the different organisation has also contributed.

In my view, any savings at all that might be made by DOO would just be a drop in the ocean compared to those that could be made elsewhere, and are not worth it in terms of the costs and risks involved in bringing it in. Though I'd like to see a properly costed business case identifying what would be involved, just so I can see that I'm right!

 

[fowler9]

Playing devils advocate, but over the past ten years the wage bill on the railway has gone through the roof, quite often by the unions holding TOC'S to ransom, maybe now that has come round to bite the unions on the bum, since I've been on the railway I've had above inflation pay rises every year, am I overpaid for my job? Well if I'm totally honest yes I am, I'm never going to turn around and say that I don't want a pay rise, who would, but ultimately this has had an effect on decisions such as implementation of DOO.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Most DOO trains in Scotland have a TE on them and again, this isn't every day, you could say that "in this day and age" we shouldn't have stations with no wheelchair access but the reality is we have hundreds still and some are quite substantial stations

Yeah mate I'd never argue with you for accepting an above inflation pay rise. Sadly it isn't sustainable when other people using the service are recieving a bellow inflation pay rise or no pay rise at all (Effectively the same thing). If you average out the 16 years since I graduated I have had a year on year pay cut. Where I work we are currently looking at further cuts to our pay and conditions along with the customers having a reduction in the service provided. Someone somewhere is making more money than ever though.

 

[ac6000cw]

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.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with that.

If anyone is interested in an examination of the issues surrounding DOO, Chapter 10 - Trains without Guards - in the 'Danger Signals' book by Stanley Hall is quite interesting (written in 1987 by someone who was BR's Signalling and Safety Officer from 1977-1982). There are other interesting comments in the book regarding the usefulness (in practice) of detonator protection etc. in a modern signalling environment - and that was in 1987, before TPWS and GSM-R etc.

 

[455driver]

Yes lets have widespread DOO (with or without Ticket checkers), as you all seem to want everything as cheap as possible lets carry on closing all the ticket offices, gateline staff can be done away with as well (they are not there early in the morning or late at night and the railway seems to run okay without them then), lets have one big signalbox to control the whole network, we would only need half a dozen signallers because the A R S E* is so much better than a human being. We haven't had any major bits fall off a train lately so we can cut back on maintenance as well.

That should save a few quid!

* Automatic Route Setting Equipment.

Railways are safe because of the way money is spent, cut back on that and at some stage it will bite you on the posterior!
One way of saving money would be to stop changing the 'standards' every 5 minutes, what is wrong with building more 450s or 220/221s exactly, the trains are immensely strong and are more than fit for purpose but they cant be built anymore due to the goalposts moved for nothing more than ideological reasons, before anyone starts I am not on about building more mark 1s but the very slight 'improvements' offered by the 379s over the previous 377s simply isnt worth it in my books.

What is 'wrong' with the ordinary 66 compared to the low emission one or what is going to be built next year when the goalposts move again.

Why is it okay to reinstate 47s (how efficient/effective are they compared to a 66?) but not okay to build normal class 66s to replace them, the railways are having additional costs forced on them for (in my mind) zero actual benefit < cough IEP cough>, it is madness pure and simple.

 

[carriageline]

I don't really understand the whole franchise system, but everyone talks like guards are paid for by tax payers, but surely this comes from the TOCs money? If we really want to make it more efficient lets look at what we pay the big wigs at the top llo

Or as tomnick rightly said, look at the suppliers we use. The prices we pay for things are absolutely eye watering. Unipart rail charge hundreds for mechanical signal wire pulleys. I believe tracker balls for the signalling workstations are in the hundreds.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[muz379]

Yeah mate I'd never argue with you for accepting an above inflation pay rise. Sadly it isn't sustainable when other people using the service are recieving a bellow inflation pay rise or no pay rise at all (Effectively the same thing). If you average out the 16 years since I graduated I have had a year on year pay cut. Where I work we are currently looking at further cuts to our pay and conditions along with the customers having a reduction in the service provided. Someone somewhere is making more money than ever though.

I disagree with you . Surely everybody everywhere should get a payrise that is at least in line with inflation . Anything else is a real terms pay cut . Its just that railway workers have got a strong union that has fought for its members to get payrises rather than freezes which are an actual real terms cut . We should not be campaigning for people on the railway to have a cut we should actually be doing something to get people that dont already get a rise in line or above inflation a raise .

Lets separate the facts here from opinion on the safety aspect of DOO

It is just a fact that DOO when it comes to dispatch , emergency protection and emergency evacuations is less safe than operating with a guard . You have halved the safety critical members of train crew and taken away the guards control of dispatch and the rulebook requirement for somebody to see the full train out of the platform .Any removal of a rulebook requirement is a recognizable reduction in safety .

Now the opinion part is this , I dont think that is a risk that we should take with the safety of the traveling public . However I recognize that other peoples opinions are that the risks are so remote we should take them . I understand why if there was a lot of money to be saved some might think it is a calculated risk to take .

However If there is no money to be saved (which I have clearly outlined why I dont believe to be the case with no rebuttal) then because factually DOO is less safe then we should not introduce it because you would not be saving any money and also reducing safety on the railways which is a step backwards

 

[fowler9]

I disagree with you . Surely everybody everywhere should get a payrise that is at least in line with inflation . Anything else is a real terms pay cut . Its just that railway workers have got a strong union that has fought for its members to get payrises rather than freezes which are an actual real terms cut . We should not be campaigning for people on the railway to have a cut we should actually be doing something to get people that dont already get a rise in line or above inflation a raise .

Lets separate the facts here from opinion on the safety aspect of DOO

It is just a fact that DOO when it comes to dispatch , emergency protection and emergency evacuations is less safe than operating with a guard . You have halved the safety critical members of train crew and taken away the guards control of dispatch and the rulebook requirement for somebody to see the full train out of the platform .Any removal of a rulebook requirement is a recognizable reduction in safety .

Now the opinion part is this , I dont think that is a risk that we should take with the safety of the traveling public . However I recognize that other peoples opinions are that the risks are so remote we should take them . I understand why if there was a lot of money to be saved some might think it is a calculated risk to take .

However If there is no money to be saved (which I have clearly outlined why I dont believe to be the case with no rebuttal) then because factually DOO is less safe then we should not introduce it because you would not be saving any money and also reducing safety on the railways which is a step backwards

Sorry mate, I probably didn't make myself clear, I'm not arguing for below inflation pay rises. Just saying that a small number of people getting above inflation pay rises and others getting an effective pay cut is unsustainable. And also I am not saying I don't think the staff on the railways aren't worth every penny they are paid.

Like I said some people are making more money than ever (Those people at the top, certain shareholders etc.) The fact that the railway workers have a strong union is a great thing, the reason I have found myself less than well off recently is because the companies I have worked at have not been unionised and it is nigh on impossible to make them so.

 

[w0033944]

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.

Nail. Head. Hit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You might have disagreed with it, but you didn't debunk it. Facts (stats) are the stuff of decision making. Anecdotes make fine telling in the pub but have no place in the decision making process.

Not every fact is a statistic, and that holds true even in some branches of the sciences (mine especially). Case studies are not anecdotes - if they were, almost every RAIB accident report and Railways Inspectorate/Board of Trade accident report dating back to the 1840s would be little more than waste paper or a collection of DVD-ROMs, rather than the means by which the railways became as safe as they are now. Though numerical data were a part of accident reports way back (I'm thinking of the Hull Paragon crash of 1927), in the majority of cases, it was a qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, statistical or actuarial, analysis which provided insight into the accident.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Until a while ago you were stating that a Guard jumping onto the tracks and placing TC clips onto the rails was the way to go. I am not aware of any occasion where the DSD has activated because the driver is incapacitated. A fraction of a fraction multiplied by a fraction gives you the chances.

I am neutral to DOO but I have an aversion to scaremongering

I am stating that the use of clips was still procedure in the event of accident leading to derailment as recently as 10 years ago (Ufton Nervet accident report), and therefore is hardly as antiquated as some here have implied. As regards DSD, you are making my point for me - if it doesn't activate an emergency transmission in the event of incapacitation then why are the "get rid of guards to save a few quid" brigade so sure it's a panacea?

 

[Bill Stanier]

I disagree with you . Surely everybody everywhere should get a payrise that is at least in line with inflation .

Where, pray tell, did you get that idealistic view from? Try telling that to anyone whose job has been de-skilled through advances in technology. Try telling to the many folk in IT and telecomms who haven't had a decent pay rise for about 10 years because of competition in their businesses from the far east.

Life isn't all cosy and easy like that.

If those IT and telecomm companies had just ignored foreign competition in the market and gone ahead and given annual inflation-related pay rises, they would have gone out of business, undercut by the opposition. Then the employees who'd enjoyed those rises would no longer have a job. Try asking them which they'd rather have - a pay rise and then no job, or no pay rise and stay employed?

That's reality, which you seem not to be acquainted with.

 

[muz379]

Where, pray tell, did you get that idealistic view from? Try telling that to anyone whose job has been de-skilled through advances in technology. Try telling to the many folk in IT and telecomms who haven't had a decent pay rise for about 10 years because of competition in their businesses from the far east.

Life isn't all cosy and easy like that.

If those IT and telecomm companies had just ignored foreign competition in the market and gone ahead and given annual inflation-related pay rises, they would have gone out of business, undercut by the opposition. Then the employees who'd enjoyed those rises would no longer have a job. Try asking them which they'd rather have - a pay rise and then no job, or no pay rise and stay employed?

That's reality, which you seem not to be acquainted with.

So to give people a real terms pay cut year on year is sustainable ?

 

[Bill Stanier]

So to give people a real terms pay cut year on year is sustainable ?

What do you mean, sustainable? I just explained above why it's sometime inevitable.

No, it's not nice. Sometimes life isn't. When I was working in an area that became de-skilled through advances in technology I moved into something else.

What would your alternative be?

 

[muz379]

What do you mean, sustainable? I just explained above why it's sometime inevitable.

No, it's not nice. Sometimes life isn't. When I was working in an area that became de-skilled through advances in technology I moved into something else.

What would your alternative be?

Well if we carry on keeping wages low and not raising them in line with inflation the welfare bill is going to carry on rising surely you dont think that is a sustainable course of action to follow ?

I acknowledge that for various reasons there are some areas where we have to cease trading like for example mining in the 1980's .

But to keep paying people in industries like teaching , healthcare and other essential public services alongside all of the minimum wage jobs in the private sector below inflationary pay rises is just completely unsustainable . Surely we could start of with a living wage and tracking the minimum wage to inflation for a start ? These are low paying jobs that we need to keep because they need to get done so your anecdotal story of just moving onto a different industry is useless there as the low paying jobs will continue to exist .