W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[Flamingo]

I have not seen anyone argue that on-train presence of what I earlier in this thread called a 'senior steward' (train manager if you like) is other than necessary, mandatory, IMO, on longer distance trains. At night, one sometimes needs the equivalent of bouncers, as well, due to the unfortunate element of the travelling public that requires this supervision.

All that has nothing to do with safe arrival and dispatch of trains by modern methods.

FGW are arguing that an on-train presence is not necessary. That is one of the major reasons for the current strike.

 

[Kentish Paul]

On lines that get ETCS, will the guard be able to see the current signal status if a route has its "traditional" signals removed?

At both Ebbsfleet and Stratford International there are no "traditional" signals as TVM430 is used. However there are signal "off" indicators on the platforms.

This seems wierd as the driver self dispatchs. I guess it is because when the stations were built the form of dispatch was not certain

 

[notadriver]

At both Ebbsfleet and Stratford International there are no "traditional" signals as TVM430 is used. However there are signal "off" indicators on the platforms.

This seems wierd as the driver self dispatchs. I guess it is because when the stations were built the form of dispatch was not certain

At Ebbsfleet the train manager would dispatch a Eurostar service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

DOO is demonstrably safe. I have been commuting into work in the Glasgow area for 22 years on DOO services

What happens if the driver is involved in a fatality?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

FGW are arguing that an on-train presence is not necessary. That is one of the major reasons for the current strike.

Precisely. On the Javelin trains, a OBM must be present on every service but in emergencies I'm told a driver can be an OBM on the high speed section only.

 

[yorkie]

What happens if the driver is involved in a fatality?

Then you'd have a lengthy delay, but you'd have a delay with or without a guard. You yourself drive for a TOC who operates DOO trains, so if you are so unhappy with DOO (which is how your posts read to me) I am puzzled as to why you remain with your current employer? Or am I misunderstanding your posts?

 

[Kentish Paul]

Yes i'd forgotten Eurostars. Was only thinking about 395s.

A 12 car Javelin requires the OBM to travel in the rear unit for emergency reasons. (the driver doing the front unit).

What will happen when two 5 car IEPs run together. Will similar happen and the TM be confined to the rear unit?

 

[Flamingo]

Yes i'd forgotten Eurostars. Was only thinking about 395s.

A 12 car Javelin requires the OBM to travel in the rear unit for emergency reasons. (the driver doing the front unit).

What will happen when two 5 car IEPs run together. Will similar happen and the TM be confined to the rear unit?

Well, if the company are saying they are not necessary, why should it matter which they ride in?

 

[68000]

What happens if the driver is involved in a fatality?

The train comes to a stop, the signaller is alerted and measures will be put to deal with it

 

[Dave1987]

FGW are arguing that an on-train presence is not necessary. That is one of the major reasons for the current strike.

And their is the crux of the matter that FGW management are keeping very quiet about. They keep talking about these new ultra modern trains need modern ways of operating which is all complete bull. They want the new fleet and the exorbitant costs associated with them, trying to attack the staff to save a few pennies is not on!

 

[the sniper]

Then you'd have a lengthy delay, but you'd have a delay with or without a guard. You yourself drive for a TOC who operates DOO trains, so if you are so unhappy with DOO (which is how your posts read to me) I am puzzled as to why you remain with your current employer? Or am I misunderstanding your posts?

Well surely you don't think all drivers who work DOO trains are supporters of DOO? I don't think he's the first DOO driver on this forum who's expressed an anti-DOO opinion. That's not to say notadriver is doing this though.

EDIT:

The train comes to a stop, the signaller is alerted and measures will be put to deal with it

But the driver isn't going to normally be in a condition to deal with you or your fellow passengers. I was talking to a Driver just the other day who used to be a Guard. During the only fatality he'd had, which was as a Guard, he had to attend three times to one guy who kept setting off the passcoms and in the end egressed the doors and bailing out, dragging his girlfriend with him. A driver shouldn't be having to deal with this after a fatality. The Guard had made announcements and walked through the train, everyone else was fine as a result, but there'd always one who makes life difficult.

EDIT2: Wrong kind of fatality, but another reason against DOO. :P

 

[bb21]

The train comes to a stop, the signaller is alerted and measures will be put to deal with it

The comparison imo being between with a guard supervising passengers and no one in charge. If the guard were also killed, then the situation is no worse than not having a guard in the first place.

But if the guard were alive, he could protect the train, offer passengers assistance, liaise with the signaller, answer queries, assist with a safe evacuation if necessary and supervise lineside safety, and do a whole host of other things.

 

[yorkie]

Well surely you don't think all drivers who work DOO trains are supporters of DOO? I don't think he's the first DOO driver on this forum who's expressed an anti-DOO opinion. That's not to say notadriver is doing this though.

They can be against it if they want, of course. But they surely can't be that much against it to the point they deem it unsafe if they are content to drive trains under that method of working!

 

[the sniper]

They can be against it if they want, of course. But they surely can't be that much against it to the point they deem it unsafe if they are content to drive trains under that method of working!

Maybe. Most people just put up with their lot though. It's not their fault if it goes wrong.

I recall this post by A Driver in which slates the method of DOO where he is: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2148286&postcount=14

 

[WatcherZero]

According to this DOO caries a greater risks of a SASSPADs: http://www.rssb.co.uk/Pages/research-catalogue/PB009807.aspx

Weighted risk of 1.8 fatalities per year, just think how low that accident rate actually is, for example its 1/3000th the chance of dying in a household accident.

Report even says uncertainty about dispatch method and staff habitually ringing to dispatch at DOO stations is a greater source of risk than the method itself.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm against DOO and any further introduction of it. I am a DOO Driver. I came into the industry post privatization and post introduction of DOO so it is all I know. I never really knew anything about Guards before I started. I can understand that Drivers and Guards who have never worked DOO are reticent about its introduction.

I also drive trains with a Guard too and I firmly believe that it is a better way of working and better for the passenger. The benefits of having the Guard (IMHO) far outweigh the cost.

I do not believe DOO is unsafe. I also do not believe the addition of the Guard make it any safer per se. Anything that can happen will. Irrespective of there being a Guard. I feel safer with a Guard and with the number of assaults on trains I would certainly prefer to have the Guard.

If history is anything to go by. ASLEF will sell the Guards down the river.

 

[timbo58]

I was always taught that the guard had a number of priorities in the event of a serious incident.

1. Protect the line -i.e. prevent other trains crashing into a blocked line
2. Protect the train- i.e. prevent any further danger coming to the train and its passengers as a whole.
3.Look after the passengers on the train.

(IF the driver is still alive and can be reached then s/he covers forward of the train, the guard covers the rear), taking into account route knowledge when coming to junctions of course.
If the driver was dead and it was DOO, it would be every man (sic) for themselves and people running/crawling everywhere from the survivors.

Although most drivers are anti DOO - it was a very common view in my 15 year mainline career on the GWML that Aslef were only interested in the best salary package for their members and screw everyone else, it seems FG are banking on this IMHO.

To be fair to FG they have done as any business would do -'whats the minimum I can get away with?' safety -how may crashes have we had/how much use was the guard, how many more lives would have been lost without a guard? etc etc.
They obviously feel the potential profits outweigh the risks for passengers and staff.

A lady asked me the last train from London -Reading and when I said the last HST was xx.xx although Turbos ran until xx.xx she said -No, I only feel safe on an HST with a guard (true!) I pointed out Turbos had CCTV and she said 'Great! I can get raped and then get the video afterwards! -NO THANKS!

I have to agree. DOO is NOT safe, it isn't safe in an accident, it isn't safe for the few platform staff and drivers who will be the only staff about after 7pm, it isn't safe for Children, the elderly or the vulnerable and will seriously devalue present guards jobs (why pay £30k+ when you can get glorified ticket examiners- spend a week showing them the ticket machine and not bothering with any safety training?)
In the event of a very serious incident the driver is not going to be any use to the passengers or to the protection of the line so let's stop pretending DOO is safer or even as safe as Driver & Guard working because it isn't.

If I'd stayed on the railway I'd be on the picket line this week and I support my old colleagues 100% in their struggle against this nonsense.

stop press: local press stating it's an argument on 'who operates the doors' -no doubt the story promoted by FG press department which like most BS from them has an element in truth but downplays it to make the 'anti side' look childish.

This is also about the catering staff -quite a few are not capable of pulling a (very) heavy trolley up & down trains all day so will get the boot.
The ones that survive - we 'd all say 'yes' to an at seat service of course, but the very busy trains won't allow the trolley through to you and the quiet ones won't satisfy the bean counters with their lacklustre sales -result -trolleys scrapped except on the busiest trains when they will effectively become static buffets after it gets busier. No restaurant, no chef, no bar and when the trolley runs out or the air con goes U/S there'll be nothing to give out for free either.
Good idea FG -it'll save shareholders a fortune.

 

[Flamingo]

I was always taught that the guard had a number of priorities in the event of a serious incident.

1. Protect the line -i.e. prevent other trains crashing into a blocked line
2. Protect the train- i.e. prevent any further danger coming to the train and its passengers as a whole.
3.Look after the passengers on the train.

(IF the driver is still alive and can be reached then s/he covers forward of the train, the guard covers the rear), taking into account route knowledge when coming to junctions of course.
If the driver was dead and it was DOO, it would be every man (sic) for themselves and people running/crawling everywhere from the survivors.

Although most drivers are anti DOO - it was a very common view in my 15 year mainline career on the GWML that Aslef were only interested in the best salary package for their members and screw everyone else, it seems FG are banking on this IMHO.

To be fair to FG they have done as any business would do -'whats the minimum I can get away with?' safety -how may crashes have we had/how much use was the guard, how many more lives would have been lost without a guard? etc etc.
They obviously feel the potential profits outweigh the risks for passengers and staff.

A lady asked me the last train from London -Reading and when I said the last HST was xx.xx although Turbos ran until xx.xx she said -No, I only feel safe on an HST with a guard (true!) I pointed out Turbos had CCTV and she said 'Great! I can get raped and then get the video afterwards! -NO THANKS!

I have to agree. DOO is NOT safe, it isn't safe in an accident, it isn't safe for the few platform staff and drivers who will be the only staff about after 7pm, it isn't safe for Children, the elderly or the vulnerable and will seriously devalue present guards jobs (why pay £30k+ when you can get glorified ticket examiners- spend a week showing them the ticket machine and not bothering with any safety training?)

If I'd stayed on the railway I'd be on the picket line this weekend and I support my old colleagues 100% in their struggle against this nonsense.

Come and join us!

 

[timbo58]

I am with you in Spirit Flamingo!

I still have my RMT and NUR badges and am proud to have been a member too.

I remember distinctly that FG thought of this 'commuter guards idea' many moons ago where regular commuters could 'guard' their trains to work in exchange for a free season ticket.

Oh how we all laughed at the time! Even the naivest regular commuters themselves realised this was farcical -the 'commuter guard' would simply hang up his guards hat at the first bit of backchat from any fellow commuter and they certainly wouldn't hang about running late trains or putting up with giving excuses for delays -no good stating I'm just a 'xxxx insert menial job title with no responsibility here' as other passengers won't accept it.

Whether regular passengers realise it or not, the guard is their sword & shield in regards to safety -safety of the line, safety of the train and safety with their own fellow passengers.

i.e Non smoking trains with no guard and no likelihood of a member of staff appearing = smoking trains, especially after a major event or late at night/weekends, an ASBO nightmare, mark my words.

Let's also be 100% candid also -these 'savings' are going into FGs pockets, not the passengers, not the staff, shareholders, none of which probably even even travel on the trains.

When I have travelled on DOO services (or Virgin trains where the female TM has heels more appropriate to a nightclub than clumping 1 & 1/4 miles back along the line to lay detonators) I, at least, have the comfort of knowing there is someone on the damn train who KNOWS how to protect passengers and the train -ME!

Don't let FG or any other operator hoodwink you into believing 'it's just this isolated issue' -it really isn't IME (not just my opinion -my real life, genuine, experience) if they allow the doors to be operated solely by the drivers (and they knew this issue was coming as they had the same battle they had to back down on with 180s many years back), then it would be logical to downgrade the guards role further and further until there's no financial incentive for him/her to be there.

Safety doesn't pay for bonuses or dividends, it's unfashionable in the board room no matter what lip service they pay to it.

 

[the sniper]

Weighted risk of 1.8 fatalities per year, just think how low that accident rate actually is, for example its 1/3000th the chance of dying in a household accident.

Report even says uncertainty about dispatch method and staff habitually ringing to dispatch at DOO stations is a greater source of risk than the method itself.

It doesn't support HH's claim though.

 

[HH]

It doesn't support HH's claim though.

Which claim?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can I see these statistics please? Would the "alleged" improvements be down to driver door release or driver dispatch?

Of course I forgot that safety cases can be ignored as long as the trains leave on time. :roll: Remind me what happened with that incident on the Shenfield metro a few years back?

Before anyone jumps in with the argument that guards make mistakes too. Yes, they do, but if it is human error, there is nothing stopping drivers having them too, more likely if you ask me. Take the Merseyrail guard for example, I highly doubt that driver dispatch would have produced a different outcome, should the driver also make the same mistake. Unfortunately there is no direct comparison that can be made, due to the random nature of such errors.

So I guess guards cannot be encouraged to be more visible then, or are you generalising the whole grade because of a few isolated individuals?

FWIW I have seen ScotRail ticket inspectors sitting at the back of the train chatting to who I can only assume to be their friends, on a number of occasions, and I have been on plenty of occasions where the OBM does not make it through between St Pancras and Strood, without the train being overly busy. It happens with all grades.

In situations where guards would feel vulnerable, so would a ticket inspector working by himself.

FGW are proposing something for no real financial benefit if all are as promised unless they start off with the intention that less than the promised number of staff would actually be used. You wonder why people are sceptical?

I quote the full message with the relevant bit highlighted. Now say that you didn't say that safety cases were ignored.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can you name one instance where too many people involved in the dispatch procedure has been cited as casual or contributing factor in an incident or accident? We can point to instance where DOO has.

I was talking about Performance.

 

[bb21]

I quote the full message with the relevant bit highlighted. Now say that you didn't say that safety cases were ignored.

Let me try again.

I challenged you on your assertion that "trains run more promptly with driver operated doors" and it doesn't matter what people on here think. Part of the arguments people put forward against driver dispatch were safety-related. So are you saying that the safety cases people put forward don't matter?

This is getting really tedious.

So instead of picking on technicalities of what I said, how about providing some evidence to back up what you were saying so that we can all be as wise as you in the understanding of how everything works?

 

[notadriver]

Then you'd have a lengthy delay, but you'd have a delay with or without a guard. You yourself drive for a TOC who operates DOO trains, so if you are so unhappy with DOO (which is how your posts read to me) I am puzzled as to why you remain with your current employer? Or am I misunderstanding your posts?

How can you assume that drivers who work in a company that has DOO support it and further extensions ? No - ASLEF does not want any DOO extensions. And I don't drive DOO trains.

 

[yorkie]

How can you assume that drivers who work in a company that has DOO support it and further extensions ? No - ASLEF does not want any DOO extensions. And I don't drive DOO trains.

You seem to have a lot of route knowledge of routes that are operated by DOO trains, so I find it difficult to believe you've not driven DOO trains, but whatever, I did say in post #1001 that I do accept drivers of DOO trains can be against it. But surely not to the extent that it is deemed unsafe?!

I predict another 1000 posts of going round in circles debating whether or not DOO is unsafe, despite the fact most passenger journeys are made at least in part on DOO trains, and those journeys are on one of the safest forms of transport there is!

 

[HH]

Then you can't expect to convince others while withholding important parts of your evidence.

I'm not withholding it; it's not publicly available. Even if it were, based on previous experience on these boards, people would claim it meant something else.

Reading back and thinking about your claim a little more, I am not entirely convinced that this is necessarily the case, ie. driver dispatch leading to higher passenger satisfaction. The issue seems far less clear cut as you made out even if one would expect this to be broadly true. Speaking from experience, on several occasions, I have had doors shut on me despite only being a couple of steps away because the driver could not see me, together with a few other passengers, running down the stairs, hence angry customers especially when a connection was missed due to an earlier late-running service and the perception that the door was deliberately shut in front of them. I have also had experience on parallel services with guards who could see passengers running down the stairs and waited a couple of extra seconds despite dispatchers already having blown his whistle. Obviously a direct comparison is not possible, but not all schedules are water tight, and guards would be able to use their own professional judgement to decide whether waiting a few more seconds to allow some late-running passengers on, sometimes through the local door, would impact on progress further down the line, whereas with driver dispatch, no chance. Of course guards might not let these passengers on, but that again is no worse than no guard. Even if the train ended up 1 or 2 minutes late, it is not a given that those already onboard would be annoyed with those who made the train having a positive experience instead of a negative experience.

Possibly, but PDFH says that late running trains cost revenue. Perhaps you better tell them that they're wrong.

Yes, onboard staff may need less training, but then who takes on those extra responsibilities? Would those taking on these extra responsibilities not require a comparable level of increase in remuneration?

We're just talking about door operation here. The drivers will be taught how to deal with doors as part of their traction training. I leave the question as to extra remuneration to ASLEF & FGW, but I would say that since drivers already do DOO on parts of FGW that I can't see any basis for a huge claim. No doubt ASLEF will think of a reason though.

Fine, the lack of need for full crew working may save some money, but to what extent? Also how much saving can be expected from the reduction in spare crew? What level of spare crewing are FGW proposing? No, I don't know the answer otherwise I wouldn't have asked you to elaborate.

How many guards currently sit around in the messrooms purely as spares? I get the impression from other topics that very few.

How am I supposed to know an exact number? I don't work for FGW. I just know from having looked at the cost of adding Full Crew Working (either fully or just in the peaks) and the relative number of spares between ATEs and Guards, that it's not an insignificant saving.

But hang on a minute. "Safety competent"? Are they going to be "safety critical" or not? What is "safety competent"?

You appear to be putting words into my mouth. We've moved to straw men, have we?

The guard made an error. There is nothing to suggest that driver would be less likely to make such an error.

I didn't for one second suggest otherwise. My point is that the driver can make an error, the guard can make an error or they both can make an error. That's more errors that can be made. Your point is the other can spot the error. This is true, but still not all errors will be spotted, which is why I gave two examples.

 

[bb21]

You appear to be putting words into my mouth. We've moved to straw men, have we?

No, I wasn't. That was not actually aimed at you. That was quoted from the FGW statement, which I thought you might have more insight about.

I take the rest of your points. I don't agree with all of them but I understand where you are coming from.

I didn't for one second suggest otherwise. My point is that the driver can make an error, the guard can make an error or they both can make an error. That's more errors that can be made. Your point is the other can spot the error. This is true, but still not all errors will be spotted, which is why I gave two examples.

Hmm, I think we might be talking about two different things here, so I will leave it here.

 

[Jonfun]

...despite the fact most passenger journeys are made at least in part on DOO trains...

Again, about my third time asking - source please? I notice we've now dropped down from "most passenger journeys are on DOO trains" to "at least in part on".

 

[HH]

Let me try again.

I challenged you on your assertion that "trains run more promptly with driver operated doors" and it doesn't matter what people on here think. Part of the arguments people put forward against driver dispatch were safety-related. So are you saying that the safety cases people put forward don't matter?

How is that a challenge to what I'm saying? You just ignore what I said and change the subject.

 

[bb21]

How is that a challenge to what I'm saying? You just ignore what I said and change the subject.

Did I?

I don't think I did, but given that we seem to be misunderstanding each other elsewhere, I think this better be put down to a misunderstanding because clearly we are looking at the same thing in different ways.

 

[yorkie]

Again, about my third time asking - source please? I notice we've now dropped down from "most passenger journeys are on DOO trains" to "at least in part on".

It's pretty obvious really. If you want to claim that the majority of journeys are not made on DOO trains, what's your source for that claim? I'll provide sources then but let's see yours!

For a start LU's annual passenger count is 1.265 billion (source) which isn't too far off the whole of National Rail at 1.6 billion (source). So you only need a small amount of National Rail journeys for the majority of rail journeys to be DOO, and you easily have that and more. The vast majority of commuters on London & South East commuter TOCs such as Chiltern, Southeastern etc will be on DOO trains, and even if they've come from somewhere like Birmingham where there isn't DOO they will be DOO from Banbury. And no, the trains don't suddenly become unsafe from Banbury as some people are suggesting.

As I've said before (a few hundred posts ago now) I prefer to see a member of staff patrolling the passenger areas of the train, but in my experience this is much more likely to occur on Strathclyde electric services (with ticket examiners) than it is on certain routes at certain times (with Guards), giving a random example TPE in the evenings.

 

[notadriver]

You seem to have a lot of route knowledge of routes that are operated by DOO trains, so I find it difficult to believe you've not driven DOO (rest deleted)

A driver that operates over routes that have DOO services doesn't necessarily operate DOO trains. HST services from Wales are a good example of this.

 

[HH]

It's pretty obvious really. If you want to claim that the majority of journeys are not made on DOO trains, what's your source for that claim? I'll provide sources then but let's see yours!

For a start LU's annual passenger count is 1.265 billion (source) which isn't too far off the whole of National Rail at 1.6 billion (source). So you only need a small amount of National Rail journeys for the majority of rail journeys to be DOO, and you easily have that and more. The vast majority of commuters on London & South East commuter TOCs such as Chiltern, Southeastern etc will be on DOO trains, and even if they've come from somewhere like Birmingham where there isn't DOO they will be DOO from Banbury. And no, the trains don't suddenly become unsafe from Banbury as some people are suggesting.

As I've said before (a few hundred posts ago now) I prefer to see a member of staff patrolling the passenger areas of the train, but in my experience this is much more likely to occur on Strathclyde electric services (with ticket examiners) than it is on certain routes at certain times (with Guards), giving a random example TPE in the evenings.

All LO is DOO, TfL Rail, All GN, all TL, most SN & SE (with more to come on SN), a good chunk of ScotRail, the old Thames Trains bit of FGW, GEML trains. The only high density bit of the SE Network that isn't DOO is SWT, and the SE Network is the bit that runs the most trains.