Should we have DOO?

[455driver]

If the driver starts against a red where the Guard has given two, the Guard will be in more trouble than the driver....

No he wont, that is down to the driver!

The Guard is also the one accountable if the train goes early.

Both will be invited 'for a chat'.

 

[O L Leigh]

But would the Guard of, say, a Voyager, be able to see if a passenger had slipped under the train?

Better than the driver would, that's for sure. Even if it's just because there are people on the platform reacting to the event, the guard would have a much better view.

O L Leigh

 

[TheEdge]

No he wont, that is down to the driver!

They'll both be in just as much pig poop. The guard for giving 2 against a red to start with and the driver for accepting it.

The only time when the guard would get a meeting and not the driver was if the guard gave 2 against a red and the driver didn't accept it and the incident got reported.

 

[O L Leigh]

No he wont, that is down to the driver!

Correct. But if the driver reported that the guard had given two against a red I would expect the guard to be called in for an uncomfortable chat too.

Both will be invited 'for a chat'.

Not had that yet. Is it just where you work that this happens?

So if you got two on the buzzer two minutes early, what would you do?

O L Leigh

 

[455driver]

They'll both be in just as much pig poop. The guard for giving 2 against a red to start with and the driver for accepting it.

The only time when the guard would get a meeting and not the driver was if the guard gave 2 against a red and the driver didn't accept it and the incident got reported.

Hopefully not by the driver!
I have never had a guard give me 2 at a red but I have had a few offer to by me a posh coffee at Waterloo!

 

[ac6000cw]

So is the union that the Guards belong to (if they are union members) putting together a properly costed, positive 'sell yourself' package to present to the DfT and the prospective ToC's, which makes a proper commercial case for retaining on-board train staff on the basis of improving and retaining revenue ? (Note that making passengers feel safer can be a costed, positive benefit, if it improves ticket revenue because the train is perceived to be a safer, more desirable travel environment). It's the employment you want to retain, not necessarily the job titles, so maybe come up with a job title that reflects the new commercial role ?

Doing the above would be a positive negotiating and PR position, instead of the negative safety scaremongering that the rail unions seem to be wedded to sometimes.

 

[the sniper]

No he wont, that is down to the driver!

Both will be invited 'for a chat'.

No doubt both would be invited for a chat, but in the only case I know of it happening, there were greater implications for the Guard than the Driver. To be fair though that could just be down to different management/union qualities between the grades...

It's the employment you want to retain, not necessarily the job titles, so maybe come up with a job title that reflects the new commercial role ?

To be honest this isn't an issue. Everyone here and largely in the industry uses 'Guard' because it's the name of the grade in the rule book and avoids confusion. I doubt there are many Guards on here who's actual job title is 'Guard'. I'm a Guard, but my job title is Senior Conductor. Other Guards are called Conductor's, Train Manager's ect. So for the public there already is a more commercially minded name.

 

[muz379]

The TOC I work for as a guard have instructed me that as a rulebook requirement it is part of my dispatch procedure to check that the signal(if provided) is displaying a proceed aspect and station starting signals is something that I am tested on when I am signing a route .

If A conductor manager did find out about an incident of a guard giving 2 against a red the conductor concerned would have questions to answer as they have obviously acted otherwise in accordance with the rulebook . If the driver took the 2 against the red then a driver manager would also be asking them questions . If a dispatcher was also involved they would have questions to answer as well .

wheras if I close my doors with someone or something trapped in them and they get dragged down the platform I am soley accountable(if no platform staff) and not the driver who has no requirement to look back .

As for who has the final say , surely such a semantic argument doesn't really prove anything .Under the non DOO dispatch procedure both have different responsibilities . The guard has responsibility for ensuring the doors have all safely closed with nothing trapped in them , the hazard lights have extinguished , the signal is displaying a proceed aspect . The driver is responsible for checking the signal is clear and the road ahead is clear . yes the driver has the final decision making power as to moving the train as he is the one who releases the brakes and powers on . But he cant do that until he has received the RTS telling him everything behind him is safe for that movement to take place .

So is the union that the Guards belong to (if they are union members) putting together a properly costed, positive 'sell yourself' package to present to the DfT and the prospective ToC's, which makes a proper commercial case for retaining on-board train staff on the basis of improving and retaining revenue ? (Note that making passengers feel safer can be a costed, positive benefit, if it improves ticket revenue because the train is perceived to be a safer, more desirable travel environment). It's the employment you want to retain, not necessarily the job titles, so maybe come up with a job title that reflects the new commercial role ?

Doing the above would be a positive negotiating and PR position, instead of the negative safety scaremongering that the rail unions seem to be wedded to sometimes.

The RMT as a stakeholder in the railway will obviously be replying to the consultation on the Dft proposals for the TPE and Northern franchise . Not just the DOO ones . Not that this will be a suprise or what they will be saying in that reply will be beyond what the Dft are expecting to hear from them .

As for scaremongering is stating the safety case for retaining the guard not something we should also be doing in part of this "package" I mean if you are saying that making passengers feel safer can be properly costed then surely you must accept that operational safety can be as well .

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If the driver starts against a red where the Guard has given two, the Guard will be in more trouble than the driver... The Guard is also the one accountable if the train goes early.

Wouldn't the driver be using the DRA, so even if he puts the power controller from neutral/park (whatever that position on the controller is called), the train won't move?

But would the Guard of, say, a Voyager, be able to see if a passenger had slipped under the train?

How would the guard have any better a view then the driver once the doors are closed, on any unit that doesn't have drop-down windows, especially on a straight platform?

Better than the driver would, that's for sure. Even if it's just because there are people on the platform reacting to the event, the guard would have a much better view.

O L Leigh

With the quick acceleration of modern stock, if the guard is towards the back of the train, by the time the guard sees the people reacting to the incident, the train might have already left the platform

 

[Carlisle]

So is the union that the Guards belong to (if they are union members) putting together a properly costed, positive 'sell yourself' package to present to the DfT and the prospective ToC's, which makes a proper commercial case for retaining on-board train staff on the basis of improving and retaining revenue ? (Note that making passengers feel safer can be a costed, positive benefit, if it improves ticket revenue because the train is perceived to be a safer, more desirable travel environment). It's the employment you want to retain, not necessarily the job titles, so maybe come up with a job title that reflects the new commercial role ?

Doing the above would be a positive negotiating and PR position, instead of the negative safety scaremongering that the rail unions seem to be wedded to sometimes.

I think the RMT did adopt this or a pretty similar position very successfully shortly after privitisation when some TOCs were arguing that as doors on many older trains could only be operated from the cabs it was best to transfer this to drivers ,but the campaign led to guards control panels being fitted to most passanger doors instead

 

[HH]

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?

DOO schemes are bid, and that means a bigger premium (or smaller subsidy) to DfT. Of course the TOC could then decide not to go DOO, but then they might make losses and want to hand the keys back...

Basically the DfT define the playing field and it's the TOC's job is to deliver that for the best price. If DOO is expected, and it has a business case, then TOCs will pretty much have to bid it (or lose the bid) - like Govia appear to have done on TSGN.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

They pretty much have - ET, Northern, TPE have 100% revenue risk with the TOC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which brings me onto the point that if there is no requirement for a guard or ticket examiner or whatever they are going to be called for a train to run how many trains will actually run without them if you take away the safety critical nature of the job , and how will this effect revenue collection and in turn the actual money you are saving by getting rid of the guard ?

How it affects revenue collection depends entirely on the service. The Great Eastern mainline has been DOO for many years and has a much lower level of ticketless travel than Northern, which has a Guard on every train.

Some lines won't make economic sense to DOO - no way is a bidder going to propose DOO on such lines. Some lines may require TEs, but still make a business case (which would include an improvement in revenue protection). Some may be able to go fully DOO - possibly because most of the journeys will be gated.

I've done DOO business cases. Many don't pass muster, and I imagine that Northern will be quite challenging. Oddly enough, improved revenue protection may be what makes the case.

 

[Beveridges]

How is DOO possible anytime soon when the Pacers look like they're going to still be here for a long time yet?

 

[HH]

It'll take time, and I'm dubious that it's worth doing on Pacers at all.

 

[Beveridges]

I think a lot of the Northern Guards are over-overreacting, I think there is at least 10+ years left before DOO if only due to the fact that Pacers will be here for a long time yet to come. There's loads of time to either get a Guards job in another TOC or go Driving.

 

[Clip]

How would the guard have any better a view then the driver once the doors are closed, on any unit that doesn't have drop-down windows, especially on a straight platform?

I think that was Yorkies point.

 

[muz379]

I think a lot of the Northern Guards are over-overreacting, I think there is at least 10+ years left before DOO if only due to the fact that Pacers will be here for a long time yet to come. There's loads of time to either get a Guards job in another TOC or go Driving.

I agree with you on there being 10 years before DOO comes about , but what about the guards (like myself) who are genuinly concerned that there are safety issues and cost concerns with getting rid of guards ,

And what about the guards who cant or dont want to go driving ?

 

[Beveridges]

Guards who don't want to go driving can surely get a guards job at another TOC. 10+ years is a hell of a long time to get this or driving.

 

[ExRes]

I think a lot of the Northern Guards are over-overreacting, I think there is at least 10+ years left before DOO if only due to the fact that Pacers will be here for a long time yet to come. There's loads of time to either get a Guards job in another TOC or go Driving.

As I'm not familiar with the area Northern cover, could someone tell me how many other TOCs there are, within reasonable travelling distance of Northern depots, that Guards could apply for employment with and whether there is a likelihood that those TOCs could go the DOO way as well

Perhaps someone could also give me an idea of how many Guards Northern employ considering the unlikely situation that there would be enough vacancies for even a tiny percentage of that figure to become Drivers, if they wanted to and if they were qualified to, of course

 

[Beveridges]

10 years is a very long time and in that time there will be a huge amount of vacancies for driving and guards jobs in nearby companies.

Nearby companies for guards jobs include TPE, XC, Virgin, ATW and thats just in the north west. If a guard was to start now looking for one of these jobs I'd be very surprised if no offers were received over this huge period of time.

 

[O L Leigh]

Oh, right. So that's alright then.

*Facepalms*

O L Leigh

 

[w0033944]

I'm going to admit that my initial response was flawed; having thought further on the matter, I'm persuaded that the savings and maintenance of services DOO can provide are worth the theoretical increase in risk, given the technology now available.

 

[muz379]

I'm going to admit that my initial response was flawed; having thought further on the matter, I'm persuaded that the savings and maintenance of services DOO can provide are worth the theoretical increase in risk, given the technology now available.

Are those savings really going to happen though ?

 

[w0033944]

Are those savings really going to happen though ?

Plenty of people on here are convinced that they will - furthermore, most of those expressing doubt are either Guards themselves or Drivers.

 

[O L Leigh]

Plenty of people on here have very little idea what they are talking about, either because they fail to understand how the railways are funded, fail to recognise the wider picture behind this latest scheme and fail to see what actually happens on the ground on a day-to-day basis. Plenty of people talk about the theory as though it were a matter of commonsense that somehow has escaped the assembled experts currently running the railways based on almost two centuries of real experience.

By all means be swayed. By all means reach your own conclusion. However, if you're weighing things up it does help to recognise the quality of the arguments being advanced by each side.

O L Leigh

 

[Beveridges]

Cost savings:

RPI's checking tickets, on much lower wages than Guards.
Less delays (DOO is quicker as "some" Guards do not always get to the doors in time).
Increased revenue protection as an RPI can concentrate entirely on revenue without having to worry about the doors.

Cost increases:
Installation and maintenance of DOO equipment
Paying Drivers more money to add Station Door duties into the job


I'm really not sure what the costs are involved on each side and I'm unsure if there really is much of a saving.

 

[O L Leigh]

Cost savings:

RPI's checking tickets, on much lower wages than Guards.
Less delays (DOO is quicker as "some" Guards do not always get to the doors in time).
Increased revenue protection as an RPI can concentrate entirely on revenue without having to worry about the doors.

Cost increases:
Installation and maintenance of DOO equipment
Paying Drivers more money to add Station Door duties into the job


I'm really not sure what the costs are involved on each side and I'm unsure if there really is much of a saving.

Too many assumptions.

You simply can't generalise like that and split things into two nice neat columns. Some of the items you've listed as potential savings could just as easily represent increases in costs. For example, you cannot assume that DOO despatch is going to be quicker and therefore reduce dwell times. Plus you are assuming that the reduction in safety would not in itself be a cost penalty.

O L Leigh

 

[170401]

"Originally Posted by Beveridges View Post
I think a lot of the Northern Guards are over-overreacting, I think there is at least 10+ years left before DOO if only due to the fact that Pacers will be here for a long time yet to come. There's loads of time to either get a Guards job in another TOC or go Driving."


I agree with you on there being 10 years before DOO comes about , but what about the guards (like myself) who are genuinly concerned that there are safety issues and cost concerns with getting rid of guards ,

And what about the guards who cant or dont want to go driving ?

Their is no guarantee that any guards wanting drivers jobs will get them, even if they pass the relevant testing. With the wages now being paid TOCs can afford to be very choosy when it comes to hiring staff, this is becoming very apparent up here in Scotland where very few guards these days are picked to go forward for testing.

As an aside and just to add another little slant into the debate isn't it the case that any new DOO schemes must use stock fitted with bodyside cameras? Not sure where I've heard this but Scotrail were supposed to be retrofitting their class 318 and 320 stock with them although I've heard this has been put off for the foreseeable future due to issues installing them.

 

[fowler9]

Purely a personal opinion but I don't agree with cutting all business back to the bare minimum even if it does save money in some small way for the consumer. It reduces the number of decent jobs available and makes the ones that are avaiable higher pressure for not enough money. Back in the eighties we watched Tomorrows World and got told how technological improvements would give us more free time, like hell has that happened. Aside from that can you imagine an A380 getting off the ground with one member of staff on board for that number of customers?

 

[muz379]

Plenty of people on here are convinced that they will - furthermore, most of those expressing doubt are either Guards themselves or Drivers.

Perhaps saying something about the factual cost case for DOO would be better than trying to assert that because those skeptical of the cost case are railway staff they must be wrong


Yes more revenue may be collected by staff getting paid less .But given that the average fare on northern is £2.50 how much more is going to be raised is debatable

The people driving the trains be getting paid more as they are taking on more responsibility , the dispatchers dispatching the trains will want more and the number of stations that need dispatchers will increase

How much less revenue staff will get is not massive RPI's at northern are already paid reasonably well anyway . and unless you want revenue to decrease all trains will have to run with them meaning trains will go from having 2 traincrew to having 2 traincrew but with different responsibilities .

In order to comply with the provisions of the DDA either all stations will have to be manned or all trains will have to carry this revenue inspector in order to deploy the ramp to allow for disabled passengers to board and alight . Unless you want the driver to be doing this which will lead to untold delays .

Cost savings:

RPI's checking tickets, on much lower wages than Guards.
Less delays (DOO is quicker as "some" Guards do not always get to the doors in time).
Increased revenue protection as an RPI can concentrate entirely on revenue without having to worry about the doors.

Cost increases:
Installation and maintenance of DOO equipment
Paying Drivers more money to add Station Door duties into the job


I'm really not sure what the costs are involved on each side and I'm unsure if there really is much of a saving.

You need to separate the things like installation and maintenance of DOO equipment which will be costs bourne by network rail from things like the drivers salaries and that which are operating costs for the franchise

The DFT wants to reduce the amount of subsidy it gives to the TOC that is awarded the next northern franchise .

The key to this is reducing the operating costs of the franchise so that the DFT can withdraw subsidy and the TOC can still maintain its profit margin .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Their is no guarantee that any guards wanting drivers jobs will get them, even if they pass the relevant testing. With the wages now being paid TOCs can afford to be very choosy when it comes to hiring staff, this is becoming very apparent up here in Scotland where very few guards these days are picked to go forward for testing.

As an aside and just to add another little slant into the debate isn't it the case that any new DOO schemes must use stock fitted with bodyside cameras? Not sure where I've heard this but Scotrail were supposed to be retrofitting their class 318 and 320 stock with them although I've heard this has been put off for the foreseeable future due to issues installing them.

It wasnt me that said that about guards going to drivers , i just didnt quote Beveridges properly .

 

[SF-02]

Cost savings:

RPI's checking tickets, on much lower wages than Guards.
Less delays (DOO is quicker as "some" Guards do not always get to the doors in time).
Increased revenue protection as an RPI can concentrate entirely on revenue without having to worry about the doors.

Cost increases:
Installation and maintenance of DOO equipment
Paying Drivers more money to add Station Door duties into the job


I'm really not sure what the costs are involved on each side and I'm unsure if there really is much of a saving.

Is that RPI's on every train?

Or once in a blue moon as happens all over the south east? That loses loads of revenue.