W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[bnm]

Compromise?
Are you serious?

FGW want to downgrade the guards role (with the drivers picking up the dropped bits) so the Company can make a bit more money* for the shareholders and you want us to compromise!

I still fail to see (from the snippets of information made public) where these savings are coming from!

Nice bit of logic there.

If there are no cost savings then ergo there is either zero or increased costs. So where do the shareholders get a bit more money from?

 

[island]

Nice bit of logic there.

If there are no cost savings then ergo there is either zero or increased costs. So where do the shareholders get a bit more money from?

New train managers can be taken on on inferior terms and conditions and made non-commissionable, for starters.

 

[Greenback]

New train managers can be taken on on inferior terms and conditions and made non-commissionable, for starters.

I also think that this is exactly what will happen.

 

[Fincra5]

I also think that this is exactly what will happen.

Without a doubt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Though that could be done even without DOO (though I guess they could use a lack of door duties to downgrade further).

 

[martynbristow]

Nice bit of logic there.

If there are no cost savings then ergo there is either zero or increased costs. So where do the shareholders get a bit more money from?

I thought FGW made a loss basically. If the government is looking to cut subsidy then savings have to come from somewhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know many of you will disagree but I think some kind of compromise between sides would be the best eventual outcome here. If the unions are able to simply crush everything achieving total outright victory over the management then past industrial history doesn't suggest this would leave the rail industry in the best of health for the longer term future, (if one is bothered about that)

This is the sensible action. If you throw tantrums and moan the management will just become more opposing and in the long term you become more under threat. The railway is privlidged that it doesn't just go broke and everyone get laid off which would happen elsewhere.
If you want a successful outcome negotiate for the company to get better revenues and that existing staff are protected. Trying to protect a way of operation for future generations isn't going to impress management.
If there are safety concerns raise them with sensible options.

 

[yorkie]

I thought FGW made a loss basically. If the government is looking to cut subsidy then savings have to come from somewhere.

The Train Company FGW will make a profit, but you are right, the franchise is subsidised.

 

[martynbristow]

The Train Company FGW will make a profit, but you are right, the franchise is subsidised.

Hmm I heard a few years ago FGW was making a loss but it was propped up by TPE. There's no official statements but First Group don't make a lot

 

[387star]

We ask: we operate these trains in the safest possible way- with the driver responsible for the safe operation of the doors this will allow TM'S to focus more on helping our customers on board

Hmmmm

Also the new summary card reads TM'S will keep their current conditions which is a change of wording from currentTM'S

 

[LowLevel]

[quote="RMT]Dear Colleagues
INTERCITY EXPRESS PROGRAMME
Further to my previous circular on the above matter dated 23rd April 2015 (IR/105/15), I can confirm that following negotiations with Virgin Trains East Coast on the introduction of Super Express Trains on their franchise, I have received the following written assurances:-
· That there will be no compulsory redundancies.
· There will be no changes whatsoever to job roles.
· There will be no introduction of Driver Only Operation and the existing duties of Guards will remain the same.
· A food bar/buffet car will remain on all Super Express Trains.
· Once a transfer date is known, VTEC will schedule further meetings to discuss the TUPE transfer of our Fleet Maintenance members to Hitachi/Agility Trains.
· Whilst not explicitly promising to bring back contract Cleaners in-house VTEC will explore all options with the RMT as and when contracts are due for retendering.
As you will be aware, the RMT is currently preparing a ballot for industrial action at First Great Western over the company’s continuing refusal to offer the same assurances on their new trains. I have now written to First Group advising them that these assurances have now been secured from Virgin Trains and demanding that they replicate these commitments for the Great Western franchise.
The General Grades Committee has now had the opportunity to consider this matter and welcomes these commitments from VTEC, however will remain vigilant regarding this matter. Additionally, the General Grades Committee has instructed me to continue pursuing discussions with Hitachi/Agility Trains with a view obtaining a recognition agreement.
I would be most grateful if you could bring this matter to the attention of your members.
Yours sincerely
Mick Cash
General Secretary[/quote]

This has got to weaken FGW/the government's position somewhat - passengers on Great Western being sold a second class service which a comparable, highly respected operator believes is inappropriate.

Apparently Tim Shoveller has recently gone on record to state that Stagecoach will not accept the introduction of DOO on South West Trains and that class 707s will run with multiple guards as they don't have gangways.

This has to raise serious questions about the motive on Great Western introducing this system.

 

[Carlisle]

Job

This has got to weaken FGW/the government's position somewhat - passengers on Great Western being sold a second class service which a comparable, highly respected operator believes is inappropriate.

Apparently Tim Shoveller has recently gone on record to state that Stagecoach will not accept the introduction of DOO on South West Trains and that class 707s will run with multiple guards as they don't have gangways.

This has to raise serious questions about the motive on Great Western introducing this system.

I don't think it changes anything really , Stagecoach (since scrapping the SWT DOO scheme in1998) have always demonstrated no interest on any of their TOCs to go DOO or alter the traditional operation, fine that's their choice

 

[387star]

Stagecoach are a top class operation to be fair

The presentation of their trains and buses is superb and they have set very high standards of train cleanliness compare a south west trains class 450 to a class 360 interior with threadbare seats!

The fact they want to keep guards is even more to their credit

Shocked they don't run more Tocs

They have standardisation as well as all their companies are superbly run

 

[Flamingo]

This has got to weaken FGW/the government's position somewhat - passengers on Great Western being sold a second class service which a comparable, highly respected operator believes is inappropriate.

Apparently Tim Shoveller has recently gone on record to state that Stagecoach will not accept the introduction of DOO on South West Trains and that class 707s will run with multiple guards as they don't have gangways.

This has to raise serious questions about the motive on Great Western introducing this system.

So if it's not even under consideration for other TOC's, why do non-industry posters think that is?

Is it because:
1. Virgin/Stagecoach want to spend money they don't have to, or
2. because they recognise the grade is a necessity to provide a safe and secure environment for their passengers?

Answers on a postcard please...

 

[ainsworth74]

My guess? DfT are driving it and want to see if it's viable. First agreed to go for it and Stagecoach/Virgin refused (or might not have been asked if First said yes first). If it works on FGW I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the next ICEC franchise specification that they must introduce a similar style of operation as the GW franchise.

But that's a guess on my part.

 

[yorkie]

SWT won't want to get into an industrial dispute.

FGW expanding one of their methods of operation is a rather different matter to the challenges that SWT would face.

But this is a thread about FGW, and it sounds like there is nothing more to be said (other than going round in circles again and again), so perhaps now is a good time to end it?

 

[muz379]

SWT won't want to get into an industrial dispute.

FGW expanding one of their methods of operation is a rather different matter to the challenges that SWT would face.

But this is a thread about FGW, and it sounds like there is nothing more to be said (other than going round in circles again and again), so perhaps now is a good time to end it?

Convenient now how a compelling argument against what is proposed for FGW has come up you wish to keep the topic to FGW only

My guess? DfT are driving it and want to see if it's viable. First agreed to go for it and Stagecoach/Virgin refused (or might not have been asked if First said yes first). If it works on FGW I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the next ICEC franchise specification that they must introduce a similar style of operation as the GW franchise.

But that's a guess on my part.

If that is the case , and I strongly suspect you are right . And because of this drive for DOO stagecoach dont win any more franchises because they arent as committed to running DOO services . Who would actually loose out the most given what previous posters have said about how well run stagecoach TOC's are .

 

[Flamingo]

But this is a thread about FGW, and it sounds like there is nothing more to be said (other than going round in circles again and again), so perhaps now is a good time to end it?

I don't think the thread has run it's course yet, there is a long way to go in the real world...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My guess? DfT are driving it and want to see if it's viable. First agreed to go for it and Stagecoach/Virgin refused (or might not have been asked if First said yes first). If it works on FGW I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the next ICEC franchise specification that they must introduce a similar style of operation as the GW franchise.

But that's a guess on my part.

Probably an accurate one, but I suspect it is being driven from an ideological rather than a safety (or even large financial saving) case.

After all, if DOO was safer and better, the case for it on all lines with non slam-door stock would have been made years ago.

 

[yorkie]

Convenient now how a compelling argument against what is proposed for FGW has come up you wish to keep the topic to FGW only

DOO is not unsafe if that's what you're suggesting, just because SWT don't go with it. If there was a compelling argument to suggest it was unsafe, then we would not be in the position we are in now which is where the majority of rail journeys in Britain are made on DOO trains.

I am not arguing for what FGW are proposing, but I am arguing against claims that it's unsafe.

 

[muz379]

This is the sensible action. If you throw tantrums and moan the management will just become more opposing and in the long term you become more under threat. The railway is privlidged that it doesn't just go broke and everyone get laid off which would happen elsewhere.
If you want a successful outcome negotiate for the company to get better revenues and that existing staff are protected. Trying to protect a way of operation for future generations isn't going to impress management.
If there are safety concerns raise them with sensible options.

I personally have put forward several times on this thread how installing more door control panels and PA handsets throughout the trains I work could lead to much more revenue being collected as well as allowing me more choice over where to safely position myself to dispatch that train . If the management put that forward I dont think that the unions would have any issue .

Has It been suggested by any TOC though ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

DOO is not unsafe if that's what you're suggesting, just because SWT don't go with it. If there was a compelling argument to suggest it was unsafe, then we would not be in the position we are in now which is where the majority of rail journeys in Britain are made on DOO trains.

I am not arguing for what FGW are proposing, but I am arguing against claims that it's unsafe.

Im not saying its unsafe your obsessed with this idea that people might say its unsafe .

The compelling argument however is that if SWT are running the same traction over similar routes and saying the guard is a necessary part of that service why are FGW are intending to be able to run trains without them ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

DOO is not unsafe if that's what you're suggesting, just because SWT don't go with it. If there was a compelling argument to suggest it was unsafe, then we would not be in the position we are in now which is where the majority of rail journeys in Britain are made on DOO trains.

I am not arguing for what FGW are proposing, but I am arguing against claims that it's unsafe.

I think the main reason it has not spread is Union resistance; the threat of long periods of strikes are not worth the risk to the TOCs.

Safety is going to be one reason the unions oppose it, but the most significant is quite understandably the protection of their members' jobs, I would think.

 

[yorkie]

Im not saying its unsafe your obsessed with this idea that people might say its unsafe .

Well others were suggesting it's unsafe, do you disagree with that view? If so, we agree!

The compelling argument however is that if SWT are running the same traction over similar routes and saying the guard is a necessary part of that service why are FGW are intending to be able to run trains without them ?

But that's not compelling, because there are other operators who do not have Guards. It's not like DOO is a new thing. I doubt there is a business case on SWT, given the huge work which it would involve, and the damage to industrial relations that a new DOO scheme would cause.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I personally have put forward several times on this thread how installing more door control panels and PA handsets throughout the trains I work could lead to much more revenue being collected as well as allowing me more choice over where to safely position myself to dispatch that train . If the management put that forward I dont think that the unions would have any issue .

The combination of door panels in every coach and driver-released doors (as already used on Voyagers) but guard dispatch would likely solve the revenue issue on most lines.

 

[yorkie]

I think the main reason it has not spread is Union resistance; the threat of long periods of strikes are not worth the risk to the TOCs.

Safety is going to be one reason the unions oppose it, but the most significant is quite understandably the protection of their members' jobs, I would think.

There's no doubt about any of that.

 

[muz379]

The combination of door panels in every coach and driver-released doors (as already used on Voyagers) but guard dispatch would likely solve the revenue issue on most lines.

Guard released doors with more door control panels could be immediately implemented no questions asked and would be likely to increase revenue to the same level as if the guard didn't have to do the doors because that few minutes either side of each station the guard wont be able to sell anything anyway .

Whilst I agree that driver-released doors would also yield the same results it would be more difficult to implement with industrial disputes and additional pay for the drivers that is then going to have to be offset by some of the extra revenue raised
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well others were suggesting it's unsafe, do you disagree with that view? If so, we agree!

But that's not compelling, because there are other operators who do not have Guards. It's not like DOO is a new thing. I doubt there is a business case on SWT, given the huge work which it would involve, and the damage to industrial relations that a new DOO scheme would cause.

Once again obsessed with it being unsafe . There are much more compelling arguments against DOO both the FGW proposals and those at other TOCS .

And you dont think that industrial relations at FGW are going to be stretched ? . I personally think that another TOC running the same traction over similar routes but retaining guards as an essential part of the service is a compelling case against the FGW proposals .

You keep quoting that the majority of passenger journeys are made on DOO trains . However what really needs comparing is type of journeys .How many long distance intercity services are currently run using a method of work that allows the Train manager to be absent from the service ?

 

[yorkie]

Once again obsessed with it being unsafe . There are much more compelling arguments against DOO both the FGW proposals and those at other TOCS .

It isn't me who is obsessed, it was others who kept trying to suggest DOO is unsafe, and I take issue with that as it's not the generally accepted position.

If it's safe (which it is considered to be) from an operational point of view then arguably it's better, from a passenger security and customer service point of view, to have staff in the passenger saloons patrolling the train, rather than in a back cab (which is where the Guard of most of the non-EC trains I've caught recently have remained firmly put)

And you dont think that industrial relations at FGW are going to be stretched ?

I am not disagreeing on that. Without doubt they will be stretched as no-one is going to want their job to be downgraded, even if it means more trains will be staffed overall.

I personally think that another TOC running the same traction over similar routes but retaining guards as an essential part of the service is a compelling case against the FGW proposals .

I don't see how that can be the case, there are stock of numerous types which are driver only operated. I don't think it presents a compelling case either way. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

You keep quoting that the majority of passenger journeys are made on DOO trains . However what really needs comparing is type of journeys .How many long distance intercity services are currently run using a method of work that allows the Train manager to be absent from the service ?

Not as many, but you can do non-stop journeys on DOO services such as London-Cambridge (58 miles), Stratford Intl - Ashford Intl (50 miles), Biggleswade - London (41 miles) all of which are longer distances than London - Reading and at least as long as Reading - Swindon, and the only one of those which 'requires' an on-board manager is Southeastern HS1, but they're not a Guard.

If your argument is more along the lines that there should be staff, other than the driver, able to assist passengers on the train, but that person could be an on-board manager rather than a Guard, then I am absolutely not going to disagree with you, as that is my view also and always has been!

 

[muz379]

If it's safe (which it is considered to be) from an operational point of view then arguably it's better, from a passenger security and customer service point of view, to have staff in the passenger saloons patrolling the train, rather than in a back cab (which is where the Guard of most of the non-EC trains I've caught recently have remained firmly put)

And this is what it all boils down to . This could actually be resolved by the provision of more door control panels and making guards do what is already in their job description . As I and other guards in this thread have pointed out I will go through the train unless it is so crowded physically I cant get through it with a ticket machine . Or unless I feel it is not safe to do . Or as happened to me yesterday I didn't go through my train between a few stations because I was trying to get into contact with control to report a fault and request the attention of a fitter . None of these things would change if I was working DOO services as a revenue collection member of staff . If I dont feel safe patrolling a train because of the number of unruly passengers then I wont regardless of my other duties .If the train is physically so packed I wouldn't be able to get through it to check tickets I wont , and if I have to report a defect I will do this in the back cab where it is much more quiet so I can hear the person on the other end of the phone .

It seems to me that these FGW proposals are actually going to result in trains running without a TM . Not immediately but eventually some bean counter will decide it is necessary to cut down on overtime so there will be NO TM's to cover sickness and then they will decide to tighten up TM diagrams so there are diagrams which work on paper but dont actually work in the real world . Surely if you think services running where the guard remains in their back cab are that bad that we should downgrade the role and cause the industrial relations disaster that is inevitably going to occur (with ASLEF as well as the RMT) you must think that the possibility that services run without the TM are that bad that the FGW proposals cannot be acceptable ?

Just out of interest how do you know for a fact that these guards have remained in their back cabs . There will be some times when because service is so busy I wont get the full way down the train because of the sheer number of passengers who are buying tickets or parts of the train are crowded with passengers standing so I cant get into them .

 

[Flamingo]

It's years since I saw a policeman walking down my street. Does this mean the police should be abolished as a waste of time?

The trains you seem to be obsessed about, Yorkie, did anything happen that the guard should have intervened with, but didn't?

If there is a guard on-board, they can intervene if required. If there is not, they can't. And the proposal as it stands will result in trains running without anybody on-board. And you are complaining on one hand about nobody passing through the train, but saying on the other hand trains where this is the norm is acceptable. Make your mind up.

Nowhere in the proposal is there any mention of any penalty a la Strathclyde that the TOC will suffer any penalty for running trains with no staff on-board. Also, there is no mention of what level of training and knowledge that member of staff will have. It could be somebody from an Agency who has never set foot on a train before. Would this be acceptable?

 

[yorkie]

Surely if you think services running where the guard remains in their back cab are that bad....

But I didn't ever say that. Some people appear to have been suggesting it's unsafe if there isn't a Guard to walk down the train, however I don't think that's a valid argument because if that was unsafe, then any train where the Guard stays in the cab is unsafe by their argument. Clearly that isn't the case.

But if you're asking me what most passengers prefer to see: a member of staff patrolling the train as on the Strathclyde electrics, or a Guard in the back cab, most will say the former. It's your right to prefer the latter, but we will have to agree to disagree.

I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again: I think there has been a misunderstanding. To clarify, I am absolutely not criticising a Guard who stays in the rear cab nor am I saying it is unsafe in any way.

Just out of interest how do you know for a fact that these guards have remained in their back cabs .

Because I was sat in the rear coach.

There will be some times when because service is so busy I wont get the full way down the train because of the sheer number of passengers who are buying tickets or parts of the train are crowded with passengers standing so I cant get into them .

Absolutely, and I've explained this to people in the past.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's years since I saw a policeman walking down my street. Does this mean the police should be abolished as a waste of time?

No, but I don't think anyone is suggesting Guards should be abolished if they don't walk down trains? Some Guards have given good reasons why they should be retained and one of those is that they provide a staff presence in the passenger saloons. However that isn't a justification for keeping the Guard role, it is a justification for something different, which is having staff in passenger saloons, who may or may not be Guards.

The trains you seem to be obsessed about, Yorkie, did anything happen that the guard should have intervened with, but didn't?

If there is a guard on-board, they can intervene if required. If there is not, they can't. And the proposal as it stands will result in trains running without anybody on-board. And you are complaining on one hand about nobody passing through the train, but saying on the other hand trains where this is the norm is acceptable. Make your mind up.

I am not complaining about that; you're imagining that. But others have tried to suggest it's unsafe if there isn't a Guard patrolling the train. I am pointing out that having a Guard doesn't guarantee they will patrol the train.

Nowhere in the proposal is there any mention of any penalty a la Strathclyde that the TOC will suffer any penalty for running trains with no staff on-board.

Well, there should be. If you campaign for that, I'd support you totally in that campaign.

Also, there is no mention of what level of training and knowledge that member of staff will have. It could be somebody from an Agency who has never set foot on a train before. Would this be acceptable?

I don't ever think agency staff are acceptable in customer facing roles, no. The Strathclyde electrics, and on-board Southeastern HS1 are examples of what DOO should be like, rather than having just a driver on board, in my opinion.

 

[Jonfun]

I'm sounding like a broken record here, but so are certain other posters, so it's hardly an issue.

Taking away dispatch duties will not make Train Managers any more revenue focussed. If a TM only ever does one pass down the train per journey doing tickets, taking away their door duties just means where they would have to put their brew down to go and dispatch they can continue unimpeded.

On an aside, how long do you think it will be until they start trying to discipline and sack TMs for not selling enough tickets, as certain TOCs are doing for catering grades?

 

[yorkie]

Jonfun - if you want to see a good operation in reality, get yourself on the Strathclyde electrics. I know some friendly forum members work on those lines, I am sure they'd be happy to to show you how it works. I note Barry Doe was saying in a recent edition of Rail how impressed he was too and that it should be more widespread.

There is no good reason why FGW cannot strive to be like that. At present, FGW operate DOO services in the Thames Valley area without any visible staff, which I am not keen on (though it's not unsafe), but FGW are proposing to address that by increasing staffing levels.