W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[SpacePhoenix]

In this scenario, the guard MAY be able to stop the train in time to leave a person seriously injured rather than dead.

That will depend on how quickly the 800s accelerate and brake. If the 800s accelerate quickly then by the time the guard sees the incident it might well be too late

 

[Delta558]

That will depend on how quickly the 800s accelerate and brake. If the 800s accelerate quickly then by the time the guard sees the incident it might well be too late

It might, but the guard would still have more chance than the driver.

Being pedantic for a minute, most of the drivers I work with do not use the full acceleration capability of their trains whilst in the platform. Passenger comfort, safety, it's just not done. How quickly the 800s brake is going to be a fact set in stone; the important thing is having somebody who has a chance of seeing something and reacting to it, thus utilising whatever braking capability the manufacturers see fit to build into the units.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Will the 800s passcom be one that stops the train no matter what or one that the driver can over-ride?

 

[455driver]

Deleted!

 

[LateThanNever]

If FGW want to run trains in the event of no TM available due to disruption, they've now got a load of managers who've been "trained" up very quickly who they could use instead...

The perfect response!

As opposed to a driver, who has nothing to do?

Surely the best compromise is the Voyager system where the driver opens the doors but closes them only when the guard indicates it's okay to do so.

 

[craigybagel]

Without wishing to dis my DOO colleagues so I will apologise in advance, not very well going by the number of SPAD reports!

And stop shorts, wrong side openings.......

Surely the best compromise is the Voyager system where the driver opens the doors but closes them only when the guard indicates it's okay to do so.

To be honest, I've never seen the point of that. Why is it better for the driver to press the blue button than the guard? That said, I'd still take it over DOO any day.

 

[455driver]

Deleted!

 

[NSEFAN]

Without wishing to dis my DOO colleagues so I will apologise in advance, not very well going by the number of SPAD reports!

And stop shorts, wrong side openings.......

It would be silly to suggest that DOO does not add safety risks. More safety critical duties are being put onto one person who already has a lot to focus on during dispatch of a train, which can only increase the chance of an error occurring or an incident being missed. I suspect however the DfT has compared DOO incident rates vs non DOO and said "well it's a bit more risky but we'll take it if we can cut staffing costs. It'll probably be fine, probably".

And to be honest there is truth in this. Even a DOO railway is a lot safer than driving to work. The railways pride themselves on an excellent safety culture but perhaps the DfT sees this reputation as an "investment" which it would now like to "cash in on". I am concerned about the slippery slope this then introduces but I can see why, in a world of short-termistic government and desire to keep cutting, that the DfT would push for DOO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest, I've never seen the point of that. Why is it better for the driver to press the blue button than the guard? That said, I'd still take it over DOO any day.

It's a curious way of operating (particularly given that unlike the Pendolino the guard doesn't even have a close button, only a local door and signal buzzer). Only place I've seen something similar is the BLS "Loetschberger" units in Switzerland where the driver controls the doors but only when the guard gives him the tip.

 

[Carlisle]

G

Neither have I, but then I have never seen a good reason why a guard can't have his head out of an opening window and physically watch the train in and out of the platform!
!

opening windows on every door is probably impractical on new high speed train designs and in reality small guard operated lockable one's may prove cumbersome and time consuming to operate in everyday service.considering the whole idea is supposedly aimed at giving TMs more time to deal with customers

 

[LateThanNever]

To be honest, I've never seen the point of that. Why is it better for the driver to press the blue button than the guard? That said, I'd still take it over DOO any day.

Just because it gives the guard a bit more time to finish attending to any passenger(s) without delaying the rest of the passengers who may want to get off. (If he's in the middle of issuing a ticket or taking payment he's pretty much got to complete it.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We don't hear about those.


Neither have I, but then I have never seen a good reason why a guard can't have his head out of an opening window and physically watch the train in and out of the platform!

Or even keep the door open whilst he looks out. Or does he have to put on a safety harness first?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Will the 800s passcom be one that stops the train no matter what or one that the driver can over-ride?

One would assume the latter, as it is the case on all newer stock I know of.

I've sometimes wondered why it is we don't have the split "talk to staff" / "emergency brake" system Germany has. There is, for instance, no particular need to stop the train (may even be a disbenefit) in the event of a medical emergency or even a crime; assistance is most likely better provided at the next station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or even keep the door open whilst he looks out. Or does he have to put on a safety harness first?

Staff have fallen out of trains doing that, though it is still normal practice in many mainland European countries. On newer UK stock with plug doors it would also mean the open door was potentially out of gauge, though IEP is to have sliding doors so this wouldn't be the case.

 

[craigybagel]

Just because it gives the guard a bit more time to finish attending to any passenger(s) without delaying the rest of the passengers who may want to get off. (If he's in the middle of issuing a ticket or taking payment he's pretty much got to complete it.)

Fair enough if you're talking about opening doors. But that doesn't explain what's better about the voyager system for closing them.

 

[Domh245]

I suppose it allows DOO but without having to put platform equipment in. The guard can check if the boarding process is complete, before getting the driver to close the doors, whilst a properly DOO service would require the driver to choose the point at which they start the door closing process. The guard may see the person rushing down the stairs attempting to make their train, the driver won't

 

[Jonfun]

Staff have fallen out of trains doing that, though it is still normal practice in many mainland European countries. On newer UK stock with plug doors it would also mean the open door was potentially out of gauge, though IEP is to have sliding doors so this wouldn't be the case.

I've no doubt that somewhere, at some point, it's happened that a Guard's unintentionally fallen out, but provided there's suitable facilities for traincrew retention (eg, say, a handle) the likelihood of it happening is minimal. A much bigger risk is a passenger seeing the train leaving the platform, and a conveniently open door, diving on and either falling between the train and platform or bowling the Guard over. That or the Guard being left behind on the platform, but it's possible for that to - and indeed, does - happen with the current system too.

 

[Carlisle]

I suppose it allows DOO but without having to put platform equipment in. The guard can check if the boarding process is complete, before getting the driver to close the doors, whilst a properly DOO service would require the driver to choose the point at which they start the door closing process. The guard may see the person rushing down the stairs attempting to make their train, the driver won't

The vogager system isn't DOO at all,its really just a slight tweak to the established procedure ,similar systems are used on other stock such as Electrostars

 

[Bletchleyite]

The vogager system isn't DOO at all,its really just a small tweak to the established procedure and is also used on other stock such as Electrostars

I thought Electrostars used "driver release, guard close". The Voyager system is much more curious than that - the driver does the lot, with the guard using a 1-2 buzzer code to initiate door closure by the driver. I've never heard that anywhere else.

 

[Carlisle]

I thought Electrostars used "driver release, guard close". The Voyager system is much more curious than that - the driver does the lot, with the guard using a 1-2 buzzer code to initiate door closure by the driver. I've never heard that anywhere else.

I think your right about Electrostars, I stand corrected, I know there's was talk when voyagers were introduced of modifying door controls to give guards, full control, I've no idea of the reasons for the present system other than a guess that maybe Virgin XC planned a full DOO system at some point during their purchase then changed their minds

 

[Urban Gateline]

I thought Electrostars used "driver release, guard close". The Voyager system is much more curious than that - the driver does the lot, with the guard using a 1-2 buzzer code to initiate door closure by the driver. I've never heard that anywhere else.

That is the case if the Guard is working from a local door panel, but if they are working from the Cab of a 377/6 or 377/7 and I believe also the older 377's, then they cannot close the doors from there themselves and have go give the 1-2 bell code to the driver. Happens quite often on peak services where it is too crowded for the Guard to work safely from the passenger saloons!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is the case if the Guard is working from a local door panel, but if they are working from the Cab of a 377/6 or 377/7 and I believe also the older 377's, then they cannot close the doors from there themselves and have go give the 1-2 bell code to the driver. Happens quite often on peak services where it is too crowded for the Guard to work safely from the passenger saloons!

Interesting, thanks.

 

[the sniper]

opening windows on every door is probably totally impractical on new high speed train designs and in reality a small guard operated lockable one may prove cumbersome and time consuming to operate in everyday service. large CCTV screens installed by every door would probably be a considerably major and expensive addition

The Shinkansen trains in Japan, on arguably the worlds best railway, have an opening window at least at the rear of the train (iirc there's one in the middle too on some stock) to allow the observation of the train leaving the platform. As such I think Hitachi clould handle the concept of an opening window, as alien as it is to modern British railway sensibilities...

I don't think it'll happen though. For 40 years the UK has been designing and specifying rolling stock that mearly tolerates the presence of a Guard rather than conscientiously accommodating them, thus encouraging best practice. It's helped to undermine the case for Guards.

Talking of Japan, some of the DOO fanboys would be sick in their mouth if they encountered JRs widespread use of non commercial Guards!

 

[313103]

I thought Electrostars used "driver release, guard close". The Voyager system is much more curious than that - the driver does the lot, with the guard using a 1-2 buzzer code to initiate door closure by the driver. I've never heard that anywhere else.

Called the 10 bell buzzer code. I used that system back in 1992 when the turbo's entered service on the Chiltern line with class 165's.

 

[craigybagel]

Called the 10 bell buzzer code. I used that system back in 1992 when the turbo's entered service on the Chiltern line with class 165's.

And is still used today on Chilterns 165s and 168s north of Banbury. I assume it's also used on FGW 165s and 166s on their non DOO routes.

 

[313103]

And is still used today on Chilterns 165s and 168s north of Banbury. I assume it's also used on FGW 165s and 166s on their non DOO routes.

Oh I didn't realise they had Guards on them still, as when I was at Marylebone the service only went to Banbury. I can count on one hand the amount of times ive used the Chiltern line since though. Thanks for that bit of info.

 

[LateThanNever]

Fair enough if you're talking about opening doors. But that doesn't explain what's better about the voyager system for closing them.

I agree - the point I'd tried to suggest was important wass that the guard should give the right away! Whether or not he closes the doors is neither here nor there for me, just that he should be in charge at that moment.

Big meeting tomorrow involving all three unions, including ASLEF for the first time, here is hoping for something constructive!

Well if ASLEF are included that will be interesting!
Although I still think guards should insist on a CPC a la HGV drivers - to survive long term.

 

[Rich McLean]

Oh I didn't realise they had Guards on them still, as when I was at Marylebone the service only went to Banbury. I can count on one hand the amount of times ive used the Chiltern line since though. Thanks for that bit of info.

10 bell system is indeed used by Guards on Marlow - Bourne End, Oxford - Hereford, Reading - Basingstoke & Reading - Gatwick when 165/166 operated.

 

[tsr]

That is the case if the Guard is working from a local door panel, but if they are working from the Cab of a 377/6 or 377/7 and I believe also the older 377's, then they cannot close the doors from there themselves and have go give the 1-2 bell code to the driver. Happens quite often on peak services where it is too crowded for the Guard to work safely from the passenger saloons!

Yes, that is the case on all 377s. The signal bell is the only button which works on the door controls in any cab other than the driver's. There is, however, a way of telling that the doors are released or closed (but nothing which you would formally describe as an interlock indication either - BIL lights are used as indicators by the guard, then the driver checks their interlock light).

On 171s operated by Southern the guard releases and closes the doors, except if the driver would like to open or close the doors on empty stock where all coaches are in the platform, in which case a clear understanding must be reached with the guard. However, the guard does not get an interlock light of any sort on these either, but instead the buzzer will not sound unless interlock is achieved (in other words, you cannot give "2" unless there is interlock).

 

[40129]

Cl-170 Turbostars work in the same way

 

[bnm]

No agreement in the talks today. RMT still holding sway despite support for the action among the ranks drifting away.

 

[Carlisle]

HM H

No agreement reached in the talks between RMT and FGW yesterday. They resume tomorrow.

sad to say it seems the people that post on here telling us that today's unions have moved on leaps and bounds since the 1970s, are just sounding increasingly less believable by the day