W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[Carlisle]

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.

Ah but we were all told 20 years ago that privatisation was going to be the answer to all those tricky problems

 

[muz379]

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.

No I dont prefer the latter nor have I ever said that , in fact ive said quite the opposite so please dont put words into my mouth .

It seems you want a visible staff presence on trains , I totally agree that passengers should get this .

Lets be clear on this unless there is a good reason for why the guards have remained in the back cabs on these trains you have been on that is a case of the guard not doing their job .That is not an argument to downgrade the role of the guard or treat all guards as if the grade they are part of all just sit in the back cab with their feet up reading the paper .

It would be like me treating every passenger as a fare evader because from time to time we do come accross these . Its not acceptable .

Make guards do their job by all means . And make it easier for us to do our job by providing more door control panels .


As for the safety argument , I still do worry about who is going to be there to provide assistance in the case of an emergency on board , either where the driver is incapacitated or whilst the driver is protecting the train . But I guess we will have to agree to disagree that those are not legitimate concerns to have .

 

[LowLevel]

Reported on WNXX and pending confirmation that FGW have back pedalled and 'SET' services will be operated by a fully competent guard including operating the doors.

 

[Flamingo]

Reported on WNXX and pending confirmation that FGW have back pedalled and 'SET' services will be operated by a fully competent guard including operating the doors.

Good news if true, but (no offence) I'll wait until I hear it from a more official source before I start celebrating (and stop worrying).

The big thing that puzzles me about the whole scenario is why anybody would want the introduction of such a big new project disturbed by industrial action on a large scale, and the way this whole thing was being presented practically guaranteed that large scale industrial action would be the outcome. This is along with a major effect on staff morale, and a resultant unwillingness from staff to co-operate with the introduction of the new trains.

Everybody who works on the trains is against this - Drivers, Customer Hosts and Guards. I have not heard a single member of on-board staff who thinks the idea has any merit at all.

 

[LowLevel]

Entirely sensible and hopefully confirmation will be forthcoming soon.

 

[bb21]

I finally plucked the courage last night to have a look at this thread and my god, how I now hope I didn't.

I was watching "Air Crash Investigation" last night and in one episode, part of the commentary when describing the chain of events that unfolded went something like this,

"Modern planes are so highly automated that everything from take-off to landing can be done through computers. On most flights, minimum pilot intervention is required throughout the journey.

However computers cannot handle scenarios they are not programmed with. When these unfamiliar situations develop is when the pilots really earn their salary, putting their years of training into good use."

It got me thinking. Don't guards' roles have a lot in common with that, albeit on a more frequent basis, as new situations develop constantly on the railways? In day-to-day running, when everything goes smoothly, it may not be so significant that anyone other than someone who can move the train is onboard (grossly oversimplifying it of course), but it is when things start to go "wrong", which could even be minor things such as an alarm being set off somewhere on-train, a passenger being unruly or luggage being stowed in such a way as to be blocking escape routes, or major events such as the driver being incapacitated, that a guard's importance shows through. The benefits of a guard is also not restricted to them being able to recite the rule book and remembering what instructions are contained within, but also using their professional judgement (on the basis of weeks, months, and most likely years of training) when an unfamiliar situation develops. Would a person not trained to the same level of competency deliver the same standard of performance? (If the OBM will have the same level of training and be given the same responsibilities, possibly less the door duties, they will likely command a very similar level of remuneration compared to the existing grade, then if they are proposing a higher level of staffing, where is the financial incentive?)

I, too, remain sceptical of the real motives behind the proposal to allow SETs to operate without guards. Nothing I have seen so far shows that the proposed changes would bring about significant financial benefits. Screwing my business-oriented head on, all it does is removing one of the few bargaining powers guards have and that can only be a dangerous precedent to set for the grade. (So I am not surprised at all that guards are all up in arms about it.) If FGW really wanted to use this just as a last resort in the case of one or two guards being unavailable, I am sure there is no reason why they could not offer the assurance that no service would be in operation for longer than 40 miles without a guard (so a guard can be swapped onto the service at Reading if a train leaves Paddington without one, for example), or something like that, together with guarantees on the minimum number of staff rostered at any time plus those on rest day cover with penalties if not adhered to. If they agree to all these additional guarantees, then I might just change my mind on their real intentions.

 

[Flamingo]

I finally plucked the courage last night to have a look at this thread and my god, how I now hope I didn't.

I was watching "Air Crash Investigation" last night and in one episode, part of the commentary when describing the chain of events that unfolded went something like this,

"Modern planes are so highly automated that everything from take-off to landing can be done through computers. On most flights, minimum pilot intervention is required throughout the journey.

However computers cannot handle scenarios they are not programmed with. When these unfamiliar situations develop is when the pilots really earn their salary, putting their years of training into good use."

It got me thinking. Don't guards' roles have a lot in common with that, albeit on a more frequent basis, as new situations develop constantly on the railways? In day-to-day running, when everything goes smoothly, it may not be so significant that anyone other than someone who can move the train is onboard (grossly oversimplifying it of course), but it is when things start to go "wrong", which could even be minor things such as an alarm being set off somewhere on-train, a passenger being unruly or luggage being stowed in such a way as to be blocking escape routes, or major events such as the driver being incapacitated, that a guard's importance shows through. The benefits of a guard is also not restricted to them being able to recite the rule book and remembering what instructions are contained within, but also using their professional judgement (on the basis of weeks, months, and most likely years of training) when an unfamiliar situation develops. Would a person not trained to the same level of competency deliver the same standard of performance? (If the OBM will have the same level of training and be given the same responsibilities, possibly less the door duties, they will likely command a very similar level of remuneration compared to the existing grade, then if they are proposing a higher level of staffing, where is the financial incentive?)

Thank you. You get it!

 

[yorkie]

I'm pleased for Flamingo (who I know does a cracking job) and his colleagues, hopefully it will be official soon so you can relax.

Having been through it myself, I wouldn't wish a job downgrade on anyone even if you have pay 'protection'.

(I was never arguing for the proposals, only arguing against some of the arguments against them!)

 

[Carlisle]

It would have been better for FGW to have comprimised and agree to have a TM on all services at all times rather than just totally throwing in the towel to the union (if thats what theyve done),as this will in the longer term just increase the liklehood of more strikes ,and disputss over more issues and make any future changes even harder to achieve as the unions sense weakness at the top

 

[LateThanNever]

I, too, remain sceptical of the real motives behind the proposal to allow SETs to operate without guards. Nothing I have seen so far shows that the proposed changes would bring about significant financial benefits. Screwing my business-oriented head on, all it does is removing one of the few bargaining powers guards have and that can only be a dangerous precedent to set for the grade. (So I am not surprised at all that guards are all up in arms about it.) If FGW really wanted to use this just as a last resort in the case of one or two guards being unavailable, I am sure there is no reason why they could not offer the assurance that no service would be in operation for longer than 40 miles without a guard (so a guard can be swapped onto the service at Reading if a train leaves Paddington without one, for example), or something like that, together with guarantees on the minimum number of staff rostered at any time plus those on rest day cover with penalties if not adhered to. If they agree to all these additional guarantees, then I might just change my mind on their real intentions.

Or another (probably less qualified?) member of staff covers the diagram?

The more and more I read here I fear the unions are their own worst enemy. The crewy really should be together as pilot and co-pilot and be interchangeable - which should make everyone happy. If they are not then the guard's function is the most vulnerable to be picked off...

 

[ainsworth74]

The more and more I read here I fear the unions are their own worst enemy. The crewy really should be together as pilot and co-pilot and be interchangeable - which should make everyone happy. If they are not then the guard's function is the most vulnerable to be picked off...

I've always thought it a bit odd that ASLEF didn't consider opening themselves up for guards once Firemen/Secondmen became a thing of the past.

 

[bb21]

Or another (probably less qualified?) member of staff covers the diagram?

It then goes back to the question I asked earlier, will a less qualified member of staff really be able to deliver the same level of performance in times of real need despite not receiving the same level of training?

My point is that being able to recite the rule book is not the most valuable part of a guard's role, but being able to use their professional judgement to analyse a fast-developing situation which can only come with lots of training, and being well qualified.

I am not confident that a less well qualified member of staff would be able to make as good decisions as a fully qualified guard. I don't think many of the general public would be, if they knew what a guard's job really involves. I am happy to be proved wrong, but I don't think I will be.

 

[455driver]

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.

What relevance has a suburban network when this thread is about long distance Inter City routes?
You keep banging on about it but a 4 hour trip on an IEP/SET with 45 minutes between stops isn't exactly the same as a station every 5 minutes is it!

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.

Can you point me to where it says these extra staff will be spread throughout the franchise because the way I read it they will only be on the IEP/SET trains!

You do appear to be making some assumptions which are not written into any of the documents I have read!

 

[yorkie]

What relevance has a suburban network when this thread is about long distance Inter City routes?
You keep banging on about it but a 4 hour trip on an IEP/SET with 45 minutes between stops isn't exactly the same as a station every 5 minutes is it!

But that has already been addressed in this thread, with several examples given where the distance is greater than Reading-London or Reading-Swindon.

Edit: just thought of another example: Marylebone to Banbury (just under 68 miles), and the trains are 'Inter City' Mk3s or high-spec Turbostars.

Can you point me to where it says these extra staff will be spread throughout the franchise because the way I read it they will only be on the IEP/SET trains!

I think 'spread throughout the franchise' is an exaggeration, it's only the Thames Valley area where this is applicable (in any case that's the only place where there is DOO on FGW, is it not?), the wording specifically mentions services which are "currently worked by Turbo trains" so the proposals were to have more staff, not less.

You do appear to be making some assumptions which are not written into any of the documents I have read!

I'm not so sure I'm the one doing that; there were assumptions that FGW were going to be reducing staffing levels, despite the opposite being written into the document, but you weren't complaining about those assumptions.

Are we going to go round in circles a few more times? I thought we'd moved on!

 

[PermitToTravel]

Edit: just thought of another example: Marylebone to Banbury (just under 68 miles), and the trains are 'Inter City' Mk3s or high-spec Turbostars.

I'm pretty sure the Mk3s have guards

 

[yorkie]

I'm pretty sure the Mk3s have guards

I know they used to, but I thought I read they no longer needed to, I guess I was mistaken, but in any case, it's not a material difference to the average passenger whether you're in a Mk3 or a Turbostar; the point is it's a high-spec long distance train with comparable comfort (many would say superior comfort) to FGW's.

But the thread has moved on as we're now told FGW is no longer pursuing this.

 

[Flamingo]

There is nothing official yet, from with FGW or RMT saying it's being dropped. Nobody I've spoken to so far has heard anything about it...

 

[387star]

Oh isn't Twitter a joy:

@Alanvickers6: @FGW travelling onboard 1V41, 1103 GTW-RDG, surprise surprise no ticket checks, this is not the 1st time on the FGW network ?

@FGW: @Alanvickers6 Hi Alan, sorry about this. Ticket checks will be performed if the Train Manager has time once other duties are performed. Jess

@Alanvickers6: @FGW Jess, what other duties ?, the doors are controlled by the driver, and there has been at most 50-60 people on the train

@FGW: @Alanvickers6 The Train Managers have a lot of safety critical duties to attend to on board, even if they aren't immediately obvious. Jess


@Alanvickers6: @FGW the amount of lost revenue across the network must be huge ?, the only safety action I saw him do was taking the top of his flask off ��

@FGW: @Alanvickers6 There is a lot more to their duties. They are constantly monitoring passengers, and safety systems. Jess

@Alanvickers6: @FGW sat in the rear cab for the whole journey ??, don't make excuses for him Jess,


@FGW: @Alanvickers6 Many safety systems are found there. If you have a staff complaint, please email fgwfeedback@firstgroup.com Jess


@Alanvickers6: @FGW my biggest concern Jess is the loss of revenue which affects us all, I am now on 1B31 1242 RDG-BPW lets see if there is a difference ��

@Alanvickers6: @FGW the TM has started a full ticket check and already has collared someone sat in 1st class with a peasant class ticket


Well done Jess on this one and glad customer was proved wrong even though a different train brilliant!!!

 

[Captain Chaos]

Whether this is the 1003 or the 1103, I know both guards. Neither carries a flask.

 

[168lover]

I'm pretty sure the Mk3s have guards

Mk3s do as there are no door controls in 67s/68s/82s cabs. The guard controls the doors from the back of the 82.

 

[bb21]

I thought Jess dealt with the idiot very well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought Jess dealt with the idiot very well.

He may not be an idiot. There are guards, albeit in the minority, who neglect revenue duties and use safety duties as an excuse, rather than there being actual safety duties preventing them doing revenue duties.

 

[Flamingo]

He may not be an idiot. There are guards, albeit in the minority, who neglect revenue duties and use safety duties as an excuse, rather than there being actual safety duties preventing them doing revenue duties.

Revenue is not the guards primary role. Indeed, it's not even their secondary role.

Revenue is the primary responsibility of Revenue Protection staff (RPI's and ATE's). Should there be more of them? I think so.

Some turns, I won't even take an Avantex machine, as there is no point, I know that I won't be able to do tickets.

 

[387star]

Sorry if already posted:
The following text is copied from the RMT website regarding a ballot for strike action or action short of a strike affecting FGW staff

RAIL UNION RMT today confirmed the timetable for a ballot for both strike action and action short of a strike of all First Great Western members over the threat to jobs and safety from the introduction of the new Hitachi Inter-City trains.

At the end of May the union confirmed that it had entered into dispute with First Great Western over the introduction of Super Express Trains on their franchise. We made it clear that RMT were seeking the following assurances from management to resolve this matter:-

• To keep a safety competent Guard on every train.
• To keep safety critical station Despatch staff.
• To keep buffet car facilities on every train.
• To ensure that the maintenance of new rolling stock remains in-house.
• No job losses.

These issues have been raised with the company by union representatives on numerous occasions, however no satisfactory solutions have been proposed by management to resolve this situation. Therefore, RMT’s executive has now instructed the conduct of a ballot of all First Great Western members for strike action and industrial action short of a strike over this matter.

Accordingly, ballot papers will be despatched to members’ home addresses on Friday 12th June 2015 and the ballot will close on Tuesday 30th June 2015. RMT has informed FGW that the union remains available for talks and still hopes that management will see sense and take the necessary steps to resolve this dispute.


RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said:

“RMT has made every effort to secure a series of very basic assurances from FGW over jobs, services and safety as a result of the introduction of the new Hitachi fleet and they have simply ignored thus. We therefore have no option but to now move to a ballot of all staff for action to force the company to take this issue seriously.

“It is frankly ludicrous that East Coast, who are introducing the same trains, have given us the assurances we are seeking but FGW have ignored us and are crashing ahead with the ripping out of buffet cars and the threat to safety-critical station and train staff purely to maximise the profits from new trains bought for them by the British taxpayer.

“RMT will be mobilising a public campaign to expose this shabby and profiteering treatment of both passengers and staff alike by a company that already has one of the worst reputations in the industry for milking the rotten rail privatisation racket for every penny they can. RMT remains available for talks.”


ENDS

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-confirms-timetable-for-ballot-for-action-on-fgw/

 

[Flamingo]

Sorry if already posted:

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-confirms-timetable-for-ballot-for-action-on-fgw/

Ignoring the retoric in the last paragraph, this is about both passenger and staff safety and security, and offering the best service to passengers. I'll be very surprised if there is not a significant turn-out and vote.

I still do not understand why the successful introduction of these exciting new trains is being put at risk in this way, and the potentially huge loss of goodwill and co-operation of the very staff who are required to implement the process...

 

[ComUtoR]

I still do not understand why the successful introduction of these exciting new trains is being put at risk in this way

Neither do I.

Why is the introduction of this unit also forcing DOO ? If a new unit was introduced on our patch it would still run with a guard where required. Our DOO is based on a specific area and not specific units.

Are platforms getting DOO monitors as well ?

Apologies if those have already been discussed.

 

[irish_rail]

Just seems crazy to me that East Coast should stay as is, with guards and buffets, where as a proper intercity route like Padd to Penzance should be downgraded to regional status.

 

[NSEFAN]

Why is the introduction of this unit also forcing DOO ? If a new unit was introduced on our patch it would still run with a guard where required. Our DOO is based on a specific area and not specific units.

Are platforms getting DOO monitors as well ?

Apologies if those have already been discussed.

I believe the trains are designed such that they don't need monitors on the platform. They instead have monitors in the driver's cab and cameras dotted along the outside of the train.

In the relentless drive to cut costs its the day-to-day staff who are usually first to go. DOO is a way of reducing the staff costs and I can imagine that if it is made to work on the GWML then it will eventually make its way onto other intercity routes too. Plus, if First group are the ones to make it work initially then I can see that making them look good in the DfT's eyes. That is unfortunately the situation we seem to be in.

 

[455driver]

Just seems crazy to me that East Coast should stay as is, with guards and buffets, where as a proper intercity route like Padd to Penzance should be downgraded to regional status.

So Kings Cross to Edinburgh isn't an Inter City route, interesting!

Oh and these new trains are not being used on Paddington to Penzance, they have been ordered for Paddington to Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea, the decision of what trains will be used for Paddington to Penzance isn't being made until the end of this month.

 

[NSEFAN]

Oh and these new trains are not being used on Paddington to Penzance, they have been ordered for Paddington to Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea, the decision of what trains will be used for Paddington to Penzance isn't being made until the end of this month.

Isn't the current preferred option for Penzance services to be bimode IEPs with additonal engines to cope with the steep gradients around Cornwall and Devon?