Should we have DOO?

[Class377/5]

DOO means that the only safety critical member on board the train is the driver.
Although the train might have a ticket examiner on board they will not be safety critical and would be as much use as any other passenger in an emergency because they will not be trained (or insured) to do anything except check tickets. If the company want them to have any more responsibility then their pay will increase according to how much responsibility they are taking on. What happens to the cost savings then?

I agree its unlikely but it was my expressing a person opinion where I choice trains with guards over DOO personally if I have the choice.

 

[Fincra5]

Why blame government ?, the reason so many people are unemployed these days is because everyone wants cheap, cheap, cheap, mechanisation and computerisation reduce headcount and reduce prices to the consumer and that's what 'we' all want

How many people would choose to buy a car that cost £15k because it took 20 technicians to make it when they could get the same car, made by 1 tech and a robot, for £12k ?

Look at todays news, how many of us will refuse to buy Microsoft products because they are doing away with 18000 jobs ?

The accountants will have worked out how much accidents will cost them to settle rather than employ staff

Well the Mcnulty was commissioned by the government... which was a farce in itself.

People keep saying about the savings to the Tax Payers, now if this was a TOC decision for DOO this wouldn't have kept cropping up as they'd take the same subsidy.

I can't remember the last time I bought a MS product tbh.

 

[Carlisle]

Well the Mcnulty was commissioned by the government... which was a farce in itself.

It was commissioned by the previous labour government but did not publish its findings till the coalition was in office

 

[muz379]

It was commissioned by the previous labour government but did not publish its findings till the coalition was in office

Could the change of audience influence what is written in the report though ?

 

[455driver]

I agree its unlikely but it was my expressing a person opinion where I choice trains with guards over DOO personally if I have the choice.

Which you are obviously entitled to do.

I was trying to explain (in my usual blunt manner, sorry about that) why the second person being 'just' a ticket examiner isnt really what most people want even though they think they do. They will see the second person in uniform and naturally assume they are the guard in the conventional sense when in reality during an emergency (or many other situations) they wont be allowed to help the driver because they are not safety critical and not trained which would, if they helped out and something went wrong, leave them wide open for prosecution and you can bet your bottom dollar the company would throw the staff member to the baying crowd faster than a NR exec can shout bonus.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could the change of audience influence what is written in the report though ?

I do believe the report was re-written after the change of party in charge before publishing but obviously dont know what alterations were made.

 

[Class377/5]

Which you are obviously entitled to do.

I was trying to explain (in my usual blunt manner, sorry about that) why the second person being 'just' a ticket examiner isnt really what most people want even though they think they do. They will see the second person in uniform and naturally assume they are the guard in the conventional sense when in reality during an emergency (or many other situations) they wont be allowed to help the driver because they are not safety critical and not trained which would, if they helped out and something went wrong, leave them wide open for prosecution and you can bet your bottom dollar the company would throw the staff member to the baying crowd faster than a NR exec can shout bonus.

Couldn't agree more (not the blunt part tho).

 

[RPI]

In an Emergency situation a non safety critical member of staff is allowed onto the track etc without PTS so could assist the driver without the risk of prosecution, I know this because I am a non safety critical member of staff who works on trains and we are trained in train evac.

 

[alastair]

Will the new Crossrail concession announced today be DOO?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=103486

 

[Carlisle]

Will the new Crossrail concession announced today be DOO?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=103486

I would think so seeing as the existing routes it is taking over are all DOO allready

 

[muz379]

In an Emergency situation a non safety critical member of staff is allowed onto the track etc without PTS so could assist the driver without the risk of prosecution, I know this because I am a non safety critical member of staff who works on trains and we are trained in train evac.

Not questioning the actual factual basis of this statement as I do not know what happens in your employment


But as a policy that is very questionable in my view though in terms of insurance and health and safety of the public .If someone is trained in evac then one day they may have to go on or near the line and be in control of other people in that environment , is this not very different from an emergency in which the public would obviously be permitted on or near the line without PTS qualification .


All that has to happen is that a non safety crit member of staff without PTS is "controlling" an emergency evac when a member of the public is seriously hurt or worse and the HSE would be all over it leaving said TOC potentially open to prosecution for a Health and Safety offense . Or If the member of staff controlling the evac is injured the employers insurance will refuse to pay out

Surely if there is any risk that someone may have to go on or near the line in the execution of their duties they should be trained in PTS even if that risk is so remote . Guards as it currently is dont go on or near the line that often but we are still trained as there is some chance we might have to .

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Does any TOC train all staff who work on the trains (no matter what their job) in PTS?

 

[Minstral25]

If the train is DOO, that is the driver opens and shuts the doors as well as drives the train and there is a non-safety customer service person on the train. Will the driver have to make sure the customer service person is on the train before departing each station?

Surely this would delay the train at each station getting confirmation. Would it be better if there is a member of staff on the train who closes the doors and gives right of way?

 

[Carlisle]

If the train is DOO, that is the driver opens and shuts the doors as well as drives the train and there is a non-safety customer service person on the train. Will the driver have to make sure the customer service person is on the train

I would think for it to be worth justifying getting the industry to spend hundreds of millions on DOO schemes ,many routes would likely end up something similar to the SPT system ,ie mostly staffed but with the ability to run with just the driver if necessary rather than cancelling the train completely

 

[313103]

If the train is DOO, that is the driver opens and shuts the doors as well as drives the train and there is a non-safety customer service person on the train. Will the driver have to make sure the customer service person is on the train before departing each station?

In short 'NO'. The train will always run, no matter what. Unless there is something wrong with the train itself.

Even the Glasgow area (not that I have been there for years) the trains will also run even if no ticket staff are on the train. The drivers role is purely too drive and open and close the doors, not to check who is getting on and off.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would think for it to be worth justifying getting the industry to spend hundreds of millions on DOO schemes...

How much?

With the right trains, many DOO schemes are pretty much free to implement. See LOROL.

Even without the right trains, it is now very cheap to install on board CCTV. I won't mention which area for obvious reasons, but some years ago there was an indicative proposal to equip an existing fleet with on board CCTV to remove the need for station kit. ASLEF also much prefer on board kit. It was nearly 100 units and the cost was in low single digit millions. It didn't proceed for reasons I don't understand.

 

[Carlisle]

Ok cheers for clarifying things there , I noticed the other day that the London overground 172s now have Bodyside cameras fitted surely they must be the only DMUs to have them so far

 

[313103]

Ok cheers for clarifying things there , I noticed the other day that the London overground 172s now have Bodyside cameras fitted surely they must be the only DMUs to have them so far

Yes, I believe my former colleagues last week is next week. Then up to another 30 will be looking for new jobs with 2 retiring prematurely. :cry::cry::cry: