I too dont think that only railway staff should enjoy pay raises that are set at at least the level of inflation. I think all workers everywhere regardless of role and industry should enjoy pay increases that are at least at the level of inflation . Unfortunately some unions are not as powerful as those on the railway but to stop the pay increases on the railway would not do anything to benefit those that dont currently enjoy them in other industries .
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion
- Thread starter 387star
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
martynbristow
Member
It's unfortunate but I know of loads of people who have been through this elsewhere it's not uncommon. You have to seek alternative employment in such circumstances or progress within the company using your experience.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
"Other unions aren't as powerful" I think it's more they can't hold you to ransom! During the universities strike everything just git rearranged. The worst part was I couldn't get a coffee! In a factory there is a serious risk of financial collapse if a strike continues.
If your in the railway count yourself lucky if you get a good rise.
I suspect the primary driver behind this is simply the ability to run trains when a guard is not available due to disruption etc.
Having read the various posts around the for and against arguments for the time savings, cost savings etc I don't think any stack up enough to be worth FGW/DfT risking industrial action. I get all the points about wrong side door release and stop shorts but that is something that technology can largely solve and obviously the various parties are willing to accept the risk as DOO is prevalent across a lot of the South East.
I also think it would be very poor customer service on an intercity train to not have other onboard staff other than the driver. I suspect we will see more of a move towards the OBM model over time (rightly or wrongly) - however I think all on board staff should have relevant safety training, albeit not the full route knowledge guards possess today.
I see this simply as a refocus of priorities based on the passage of time and the improvements in technology.
Having read the various posts around the for and against arguments for the time savings, cost savings etc I don't think any stack up enough to be worth FGW/DfT risking industrial action. I get all the points about wrong side door release and stop shorts but that is something that technology can largely solve and obviously the various parties are willing to accept the risk as DOO is prevalent across a lot of the South East.
I also think it would be very poor customer service on an intercity train to not have other onboard staff other than the driver. I suspect we will see more of a move towards the OBM model over time (rightly or wrongly) - however I think all on board staff should have relevant safety training, albeit not the full route knowledge guards possess today.
I see this simply as a refocus of priorities based on the passage of time and the improvements in technology.
As the railway is a controlled environment with restricted access and various safety systems in place it is actually a less hazardous environment than roads.
Dieseldriver
Member
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 1,020
Yep because roads have 750DC live rails snaking about on the floor or high voltage AC wires not much taller than head height with 125mph trains running at up to 125mph taking up to a mile to stop. The Riley is extremely hazardous, that's why there are so many procedures and equipment to keep people safe. Not to mention the high level of training people need to receive to work in that environment.
These tweets make interesting reading after a person collapsed today on a busy DOO train:
https://mobile.twitter.com/davidfsmith/status/591142209132568576
https://mobile.twitter.com/davidfsmith/status/591142209132568576
Last edited:
Yes, a misunderstanding.
Most people (possibly including the Twitter team) think of a person who patrols a train and does tickets and provides assistance to customers as a "Guard"
Of course, we all know that a Guard is actually a specifically defined 'safety critical' role, that may or may not include the selling of tickets.
So, while it is true FGW are increasing the number of staff on trains, it is untrue to say they will be "Guards", and given the person who tweeted them, they were not going to be allowed to get away with that mistake!
Most people (possibly including the Twitter team) think of a person who patrols a train and does tickets and provides assistance to customers as a "Guard"
Of course, we all know that a Guard is actually a specifically defined 'safety critical' role, that may or may not include the selling of tickets.
So, while it is true FGW are increasing the number of staff on trains, it is untrue to say they will be "Guards", and given the person who tweeted them, they were not going to be allowed to get away with that mistake!
martynbristow
Member
I don't see the point of this! Unless guards are going to be trained as frontline medical staff it doesn't help. IF the guard wishes he can provide limited reassurance but unless he has appropriate medical training cannot intervene directly that is a can of worms. FGW's point is correct they aren't unstaring there trains unless staff are delayed. In this case you'd still have to potentially get an ambulance in.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
And another poster misses the point by a mile. :roll:
If there is a guard on the train there is somebody who is trained to assess the situation, contact the relevant assistance, arrange for it to meet at the most appropriate spot, and take control of the situation. While the driver can keep the wheels turning and concentrate on getting the train in a timely manner to wherever it needs to be for help to be accessed.
Without a guard on the train, the driver either has to delay things by organising all this instead of doing what he is supposed to be doing, and/or anybody who needs help is basically at the mercy of whoever happens to be in the carriage and feels like pitching in - or not.
Last edited:
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,275
Agreed. In this situation the guard is invaluable, both in terms of the passenger's welfare and in the TOC's interest as the delays can be minimised).
I'm sorry but FGW's assurances about more staff wear thin with me. More staff for how long? Until the next franchise award? When cost savings are imposed on them by DfT? By making the guard non critical, it invites the possibility of mass redundancies in the future.
craigybagel
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 5,829
Or indeed to stay on the phone to the 999 operator and follow their instructions right up until the paramedics arrived at the next station, as I had to do for the last medical emergency on my train. This was done whilst the train was on the move between stations where the driver was funnily enough driving the train.
I understand your point but for that type of potential assistance to work effectively all the time you would need to ensure a guard or competent member of staff was present in every single unit not fitted with a corridor connection when working in multiple
Last edited:
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
In an emergency which warranted it, properly trained staff could get from one unit to another by stopping the train, climbing out of one and into another. It would not take long.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I certainly do think first aid training should be mandatory for traincrew, and I remain amazed that it is not.
Agreed. I work for a DOO TOC and when an older gent had a heart attack on my train last year between stations (and subsequently died) there was very little I was able to do. By the time i'd found out where the passcom had been operated and what was going on I then had to go back and contact the signaller and then get the train into the next station before recontacting everyone involved (paramedics/staff/signaller etc) to let them know where I was. I was going backwards and forwards between the cab and the coach where the gent had collapsed. Every time I went back, something had changed.
I appreciate these events are few and far between but time and again it shows the benefit of having another safety critical member of staff on board - even if it's just to organise this side of things.
And I think this also shows the different side of the rle of guard and RPI (no disrespect meant to any RPIs). It is the guard's train and he/she would be able to assist with the safety of their passengers and the train being their priority. An RPI on board is not expected/required to do this (and why should they have to pick up the pieces without the correct training, when they're not employed in a safety critical role).
While I admit I have never operated a train with a guard on board, the public consistently say they want to see more of train guards on their services not less. They are then fobbed off by being told "there will be more staff on board". Not quite the same thing though is it, and others have mentioned...
It's rare for drivers to be first aid trained, even DOO services. Costs too much for the course and to get cover. Hell, some TOCs can't even cover basic annual leave and training.
The only thing a driver can do is simply drive to the next suitable location and ring the signaller via the GSM-R. In the meantime if there were to be a guard on the train, they could liaise with the ambulance service with vital details whilst arranging for any other medically trained people to help deal with the situation.
If there wasn't a TM on a FGW service because of alleged "disruption" (I use that loosely as I have a belief that staffing shortages will be deemed as disruption) then people are more likely to collapse to overcrowded trains especially in summer. At least a driver can concentrate on the complicated GWML and a guard can sort this out whilst on the move.
As a side note..
Great news for you in Pro-DOO camp... I was chatting to a FGW driver recently who says ASLEF has booted the idea out as they don't want DOO extensions.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
As a side note..
Great news for you in Pro-DOO camp... I was chatting to a FGW driver recently who says ASLEF has booted the idea out as they don't want DOO extensions.
The unions will of course oppose the idea - I never expected them not to for a moment. The question is who will call who's bluff, and if there will be strikes, and if there are who gives in first.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
Would the question not be who is looking for the safest and best outcome for the trains and passengers as a whole, and who is trying to disguise self-interest as being in passengers interest?
Discuss...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For everybody saying that DOO is perfectly safe, please read this thread...
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=114982
martynbristow
Member
Ohh dear very serious, I hope she recovers well.
However the issue is not that DOO (principle) is unsafe its that DOO's implementation is unsafe.
2 RAIB reports spring to mind involving non-DOO trains and both passengers died, 1 saw the guard convicted the other was an accident.
The RIAB clearly indicate that passengers can be misled.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The best income will, I'm sure you will appreciate, also include value for money for tax- and farepayers, however. If too many people are priced off trains into cars, the transport system as a whole is less safe.
That is not unsafe because it is DOO, but because someone didn't do their job properly and check that the train was clear before departing. There was, after all, that incident where someone fell down the side of a Merseyrail train and was killed, and that occurred because a guard belled the train off with someone leaning on it. Not really any different.
*If* it is established that the incident occurred because the driver could not see the passenger trapped in the doors (perhaps because the monitors/mirrors did not give an adequate view), then that's perhaps one for the anti-DOO argument. But if it is established that the driver could see, but didn't check, then it isn't, as a guard could easily have made the same error.
You *could* feasibly come up with a safer system where guard operation was used as at present, but the driver additionally had mirrors/monitors and made an additional check. But that is not how guard operation works in the UK. If the driver receives two buzzes/bells, they don't have to check further that those signals were not in error, at least in terms of passengers stuck in doors.
Last edited:
martynbristow
Member
I referred to that one in my post above. The more relevant one was on the Westcoast Way many years ago which again a guard couldn't see.
The driver was under instruction too which makes things complicated :/
It would most likely be lack of perspective through a computer monitor, but this could be solved by ensuring people are further away and using laser detection or potentially infrared
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The issue with that is people blocking it. But it is notable how SBB and DB do this on their newer stock - the doors close after a very short period (also to keep the heat in) and the driver then has to concern themselves with only one or two remaining doors. We do have that kind of autoclose, but it's much slower; on DB the doors reclose after something like 10 seconds of non-use at most.
But if the driver can't see for certain, surely it is down to them to get up and nose out of the window, or even step out onto the platform, and not make assumptions?
I totally agree most of the public do want to see helpfull and knowledgeable staff on trains, particularly longer distance ones , but pretty sure most are not particularly fussed weather they are traditional guards Southeastern style OBMs or Scotrail style ticket examiners as long as they are well trained and good at their job
Last edited:
martynbristow
Member
Exactly. The DB and SBB solution seems sensible, we have a 1 size fits all mentality sometimes.
Yes I agree that if the driver can't see they should check but there are limits (and pressures) one possible explanation is its not clear through the DOO camera. If the resolution of the image is comparable to an individual then you'd miss them.
The problem is people being allowed too close to the train, move the safe distance further away.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes I can't agree more people want to see presence preferably related to the passenger numbers.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
This may be a role for the yellow line and/or hatchings in its place, and perhaps adding to the "we are now arriving" announcement "When you leave the train, please move away from the hatched area as soon as you can for your own safety while the train departs" or similar - a safety announcement that could make a genuine difference.
Another thing I would like to see added is, as you get on German U- and S-Bahnen at times, outside speakers on the train which the driver can announce to. If he's not sure whether someone near the train is in the way or something, he could quickly announce "Can you all move back behind the yellow line, so I can see to close the doors properly"? Not everyone would be paying attention, but it could help at a very low cost.
Another thing I would like to see added is, as you get on German U- and S-Bahnen at times, outside speakers on the train which the driver can announce to. If he's not sure whether someone near the train is in the way or something, he could quickly announce "Can you all move back behind the yellow line, so I can see to close the doors properly"? Not everyone would be paying attention, but it could help at a very low cost.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
The proposal is that in certain circumstances at the discretion of TOC management it can run without any of the above arrangements in place.
martynbristow
Member
The Berlin S/U-Bahn and Munich's were impressive. they have impeccable visibility and the driver can drive while looking back in some cases.
The hustle alarms and general procedures are much tighter and people don't hang around.
- Status