W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[bnm]

I was somewhat unbelieving about the loans to cover lost wages to keep folk on the pickets when told by a FGW staffer. That was until he showed me the correspondence with his area rep.

Many folk simply don't want to give up three days pay for a cause they neither believe in or voted for.

 

[Don King]

I thought I'd register and add my thoughts here, as a driver who has worked both DOO and non DOO services in my time.

I am against the DOO method of working. It adds more pressure, far more distraction and ultimately criminal liability onto the driver, on top of everything else we have to do. I cannot think of any way how DOO added positively to my duties at all. All it just meant was extra work, extra stress, and a rubbish service for the public.

Regarding in cab CCTV dispatch, with trains such as the IEP, I would like to know precisely what a driver is supposed to do if someone is leaning against the 10th coach down from you. On the DOO routes I have previously worked, the trains are much shorter, you could lean out of the window and shout at them to stand back, or even dispatch like a 'reverse guard' by standing on the platform and operating the doors. On long DOO trains, or DOO trains with no proper secondary method of viewing the platform, I would like to know how the hell this is at all safe.

The procedure would be 'ring the singaller, secure the cab, walk back 10 coaches, tell the punter to stand away, return to the cab, phone the signaller and restart the dispatch process and hope they remain stood away'. Thus all the supposed time savings from DOO are down the pan.

Or alternatively a guard can just dispatch from the location the troublesome punters are at in their presence and keep a good eye out whilst closing the local door. Much quicker and much safer too.

I asked a colleague who worked on a 12 car DOO operator, before transferring to a non DOO operator, and he said 'we just pulled out and hoped for the best, you'd be there all day if you started taking your key out walking back and rowing with passengers for standing in front of the yellow line'.

What I do think is necessary is for the narrative to be challenged so that is not a debate about "opening a door", but about "criminal liability for train dispatch procedures". The Liverpool incident is certainly controversial, but the girl would have still been killed if the train was DOO. I do not want to re-hash all that, but DOO would not have prevented it.
There are valid arguments about not giving the driver control of opening the doors (due to the increase risk of them pressing the door buttons when stopped at signals or out of course stations) - and equally reasons in favour (the driver is less likely to release them if he stops short - although I think most guards know where they are on the platform anyway) , but the real issue is about safe train dispatch. Who actually presses the button is a bit more of a side issue.

I also found the following link, and the first comment below adequately sums up why DOO is no good from both an operational and a customer service position.

https://mancunian1001.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/cuts-scene-investigation-why-driver-only-operation-just-wouldnt-doo/

I have always felt slightly uneasy when driving DOO. With a guard I can relax and concentrate on my job which is to drive. I am a driver, not a guard, and not platform dispatch.

Incidentally surely the most safe method of dispatch would be a guard operating the doors, and the platform staff operating the RA. No chance of dispatch on a red either.

 

[Don King]

Why would I as a driver want to take on criminal liability for the behaviour of passengers at platforms on top of my other duties?

The RMT are not being belligerent, I support them. I want a qualified guard who has my back, and the workload can be sensibly shared out, not a cabin steward, who may very well be dispensed with, come franchise changes.

And so what if they are offering loans. Why is that any different to a strike fund, except it has to be paid back?

 

[gareth950]

So the talks today have broken up yet again without an agreement, with the RMT saying only 'limited progress' has been made.
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/intercity-express-programme-iep200815/

To: First Great Western RMT Members

Dear colleague

INTERCITY EXPRESS PROGRAMME (IEP)

Further to previous correspondence, you will know doubt be aware that talks with the company have taken place over the last two days. While limited progress has been made, no agreement has yet been reached on the major issues at the heart of this dispute, which are:

• Assurances over TUPE and PTR&R on Engineering Grades
• The Role of the Guard
• The removal of buffet cars

These talks have now been adjourned until next week when hopefully further more substantial progress can be made. However, while any agreement is yet to be reached, all industrial action which you have been previously notified of remains in place.

As I say above, talks will restart next week, but all this action remains on. Thank you for supporting your union until now during this dispute and I look forward to this continuing until our goals are achieved.

 

[455driver]

HM H

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

So its the unions trying to change everything is it?
And there was me thinking it was the Management doing DaFTs dirty work of trying to force DOO onto long distance services and doing away with the guards job once and for all!

Thank you for clearing that up for me! :roll:

 

[Carlisle]

So its the unions trying to change everything is it?
And there was me thinking it was the Management doing DaFTs dirty work of trying to force DOO onto long distance services and doing away with the guards job once and for all!

Thank you for clearing that up for me! :roll:

No one is planning to do away with train managers once and for all in these current changes , but I can understand the unions wanting garuntees it won't happen in a future franchise, and hopefully they are also trying equally hard if not harder to prevent depot staff being thrown on the dole in thie current franchise period

 

[LateThanNever]

I thought I'd register and add my thoughts here, as a driver who has worked both DOO and non DOO services in my time.

I am against the DOO method of working. It adds more pressure, far more distraction and ultimately criminal liability onto the driver, on top of everything else we have to do. I cannot think of any way how DOO added positively to my duties at all. All it just meant was extra work, extra stress, and a rubbish service for the public.

Regarding in cab CCTV dispatch, with trains such as the IEP, I would like to know precisely what a driver is supposed to do if someone is leaning against the 10th coach down from you. On the DOO routes I have previously worked, the trains are much shorter, you could lean out of the window and shout at them to stand back, or even dispatch like a 'reverse guard' by standing on the platform and operating the doors. On long DOO trains, or DOO trains with no proper secondary method of viewing the platform, I would like to know how the hell this is at all safe.

The procedure would be 'ring the singaller, secure the cab, walk back 10 coaches, tell the punter to stand away, return to the cab, phone the signaller and restart the dispatch process and hope they remain stood away'. Thus all the supposed time savings from DOO are down the pan.

Or alternatively a guard can just dispatch from the location the troublesome punters are at in their presence and keep a good eye out whilst closing the local door. Much quicker and much safer too.

I asked a colleague who worked on a 12 car DOO operator, before transferring to a non DOO operator, and he said 'we just pulled out and hoped for the best, you'd be there all day if you started taking your key out walking back and rowing with passengers for standing in front of the yellow line'.

What I do think is necessary is for the narrative to be challenged so that is not a debate about "opening a door", but about "criminal liability for train dispatch procedures". The Liverpool incident is certainly controversial, but the girl would have still been killed if the train was DOO. I do not want to re-hash all that, but DOO would not have prevented it.
There are valid arguments about not giving the driver control of opening the doors (due to the increase risk of them pressing the door buttons when stopped at signals or out of course stations) - and equally reasons in favour (the driver is less likely to release them if he stops short - although I think most guards know where they are on the platform anyway) , but the real issue is about safe train dispatch. Who actually presses the button is a bit more of a side issue.

I also found the following link, and the first comment below adequately sums up why DOO is no good from both an operational and a customer service position.

https://mancunian1001.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/cuts-scene-investigation-why-driver-only-operation-just-wouldnt-doo/

I have always felt slightly uneasy when driving DOO. With a guard I can relax and concentrate on my job which is to drive. I am a driver, not a guard, and not platform dispatch.

Incidentally surely the most safe method of dispatch would be a guard operating the doors, and the platform staff operating the RA. No chance of dispatch on a red either.

Very interesting - and, as you say, you can't concentrate on two things at once.
So my 'ACAS' solution would be that drivers have to get the franchisee/management to take responsibility for any criminal liability that attaches to the driver as a result of the driver consenting to DOO. That might not be legally enforceable but if the drivers insisted on it, it would give them the moral high ground, in the event of any problems, which would concentrate the minds of the operators.
Then I'd go back to the idea of a "Certificate of Professional Competence" for Guards (as for HGV drivers).
Every guard should have one as a base.
Then there should be:
Revenue,
Traction,
Route,
knowledge as addons.
Then go for no train without a guard with a CPC full stop.
And only in extremis without all the addons to the CPC - say no more than 1% of trains in a month. This would give some flexibilty to management, whilst still giving the driver some support and - I'd hope - might 'bring back the guard' at least a bit!

 

[Robertj21a]

Very interesting - and, as you say, you can't concentrate on two things at once.
So my 'ACAS' solution would be that drivers have to get the franchisee/management to take responsibility for any criminal liability that attaches to the driver as a result of the driver consenting to DOO. That might not be legally enforceable but if the drivers insisted on it, it would give them the moral high ground, in the event of any problems, which would concentrate the minds of the operators.
Then I'd go back to the idea of a "Certificate of Professional Competence" for Guards (as for HGV drivers).
Every guard should have one as a base.
Then there should be:
Revenue,
Traction,
Route,
knowledge as addons.
Then go for no train without a guard with a CPC full stop.
And only in extremis without all the addons to the CPC - say no more than 1% of trains in a month. This would give some flexibilty to management, whilst still giving the driver some support and - I'd hope - might 'bring back the guard' at least a bit!

Sorry, I'm not going to accept '.....you can't concentrate on two things at once.' - of course you can, everyone does it all time. If I drive my car I'm probably concentrating on a wide range of issues, many of which have to assume equal importance if I am to avoid an accident.

 

[LateThanNever]

Sorry, I'm not going to accept '.....you can't concentrate on two things at once.' - of course you can, everyone does it all time. If I drive my car I'm probably concentrating on a wide range of issues, many of which have to assume equal importance if I am to avoid an accident.

Your'e concentrating on driving, which is what the driver should be. But if you stare into the rear view mirrow for 15 seconds the front end might not end up in the required direction!

 

[bnm]

Your'e concentrating on driving, which is what the driver should be. But if you stare into the rear view mirrow for 15 seconds the front end might not end up in the required direction!

Whereas the front end of a train will stay in the required direction should the driver spend 15 seconds looking at a CCTV feed. Said train will also be brought to a rapid halt should the driver fail to multitask (as they do day in day out) and miss a restrictive signal aspect.

 

[BestWestern]

Whereas the front end of a train will stay in the required direction should the driver spend 15 seconds looking at a CCTV feed. Said train will also be brought to a rapid halt should the driver fail to multitask (as they do day in day out) and miss a restrictive signal aspect.

Oh that's alright then! Best remove all that silly hassle that goes with having a SPAD....:roll:

As others have already pointed out, the concept of the Driver somehow being responsible for observing the train safely leave the platform is flawed, for several reasons.

Read the posts above. They hit the nail firmly on the head about all of this nonsense. It isn't particularly safe. It isn't at all necessary. And Drivers don't want it, either. Those concerned will continue to fight to defend the future of their livelihoods. That you find it so unaccptable for people to do so is, so doggedly against you seem to be, is somewhat regretable, but thankfully it matters not.

 

[455driver]

Whereas the front end of a train will stay in the required direction should the driver spend 15 seconds looking at a CCTV feed. Said train will also be brought to a rapid halt should the driver fail to multitask (as they do day in day out) and miss a restrictive signal aspect.

At which point the train driver could (would if its a TPWS overspeed, SPAD etc) be removed from driving while an investigation is carried out, the outcome of this investigation determining whether the train driver is still a train driver , redeployed or dismissed!
something that wont happen in your car!

Although it is unusual for one error to lead to a driver losing their job it certainly isnt unheard of!

 

[tsr]

Very interesting - and, as you say, you can't concentrate on two things at once.
So my 'ACAS' solution would be that drivers have to get the franchisee/management to take responsibility for any criminal liability that attaches to the driver as a result of the driver consenting to DOO. That might not be legally enforceable but if the drivers insisted on it, it would give them the moral high ground, in the event of any problems, which would concentrate the minds of the operators.
Then I'd go back to the idea of a "Certificate of Professional Competence" for Guards (as for HGV drivers).
Every guard should have one as a base.
Then there should be:
Revenue,
Traction,
Route,
knowledge as addons.
Then go for no train without a guard with a CPC full stop.
And only in extremis without all the addons to the CPC - say no more than 1% of trains in a month. This would give some flexibilty to management, whilst still giving the driver some support and - I'd hope - might 'bring back the guard' at least a bit!

There is already a competency licensing system which does precisely that, though of course the advantage is that all criteria must be met before the train runs. I can't see the point of "ah well, today is the day we do not have a guard who signs the route [or whatever] but we'll go anyway" as the only way you can ensure railway safety-critical personnel are present; each specific type of serious incident usually has a fairly small and random chance of occurring, and so it is nigh-on impossible to pick the day you need a guard.

 

[irish_rail]

It isn't only a red signal a driver may miss, if pulling away from a platform staring at CCTV monitors.

P WAY staff, down on the track, these fancy new electric IEPs will probably accelelrate pretty silently, and if the driver fails to sound the horn due to not seeing people on the track whilst distracted by the CCTV, there is a risk of a fatality.
A recent report stated there are still too many worker deaths on Britain's railways, as well as passenger deaths at the platform to train interface, so can someone please explain to me again how DOO will be safer?! :roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

A recent report stated there are still too many worker deaths on Britain's railways, as well as passenger deaths at the platform to train interface, so can someone please explain to me again how DOO will be safer?! :roll:

Unless the guard can lean out of a window while the train is leaving the platform, which I doubt with dispatch from passenger doors on IEP, it will be safer for the platform-train interface to have a driver watching the monitors. It won't necessarily be safer for the whole operation; I think most people would take the line that it's a way of saving money while remaining adequately safe. Though of course many would debate whether it was adequate or not.

 

[Dave1987]

Whereas the front end of a train will stay in the required direction should the driver spend 15 seconds looking at a CCTV feed. Said train will also be brought to a rapid halt should the driver fail to multitask (as they do day in day out) and miss a restrictive signal aspect.

Wow you really don't understand train driving do you. If we trip a set of TPWS stop loops because we have SPADed you don't just get a slap on the wrist and told be more careful next time. It goes on your permanent record as a major incident, and are taken of the road pending investigation and an action plan. You make it sound so cavalier, and almost a routine thing for a driver to SPAD. You cannot compare driving your car to driving a train.

 

[plymothian]

There is already a competency licensing system which does precisely that, though of course the advantage is that all criteria must be met before the train runs. I can't see the point of "ah well, today is the day we do not have a guard who signs the route [or whatever] but we'll go anyway" as the only way you can ensure railway safety-critical personnel are present;

But that is precisely what happens on a strike day, so what's the point?
A competency system is only as competent as those who manage it.

 

[irish_rail]

Unless the guard can lean out of a window while the train is leaving the platform, which I doubt with dispatch from passenger doors on IEP, it will be safer for the platform-train interface to have a driver watching the monitors. It won't necessarily be safer for the whole operation; I think most people would take the line that it's a way of saving money while remaining adequately safe. Though of course many would debate whether it was adequate or not.

Yes, but we here in Britain, THANK GOD, do NOT rely on being adequately
safe. We strive to improve safety, to eliminate risk, and this will not do that....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wow you really don't understand train driving do you. If we trip a set of TPWS stop loops because we have SPADed you don't just get a slap on the wrist and told be more careful next time. It goes on your permanent record as a major incident, and are taken of the road pending investigation and an action plan. You make it sound so cavalier, and almost a routine thing for a driver to SPAD. You cannot compare driving your car to driving a train.

AGREED , well said that man! And lets not forget, not all signals, in fact many signals, are NOT protected by TPWS! ERTMS is still a long way off yet, and so having a SPAD can most definitely be a VERY big deal!

 

[bnm]

Wow you really don't understand train driving do you. If we trip a set of TPWS stop loops because we have SPADed you don't just get a slap on the wrist and told be more careful next time. It goes on your permanent record as a major incident, and are taken of the road pending investigation and an action plan. You make it sound so cavalier, and almost a routine thing for a driver to SPAD. You cannot compare driving your car to driving a train.

Which is exactly the point I was making. It was a previous poster who made the comparison. A car driver has far fewer aids to safety than a train driver. My intention was not to be cavalier or denigrate train drivers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but we here in Britain, THANK GOD, do NOT rely on being adequately
safe.

I disagree, we very much do. For example, we allow guard operation where the guard cannot see the platform after having given the two bells. That is less safe than stock provided with droplights, but we don't retrofit droplights to all stock. And there is of course DOO already.

Safety is never an absolute. It can't be. Nothing is 100% safe.

 

[irish_rail]

Agreed, but we must always STRIVE for 100 percent safety. Or so my employers tell me!!

 

[LateThanNever]

There is already a competency licensing system which does precisely that, though of course the advantage is that all criteria must be met before the train runs. I can't see the point of "ah well, today is the day we do not have a guard who signs the route [or whatever] but we'll go anyway" as the only way you can ensure railway safety-critical personnel are present; each specific type of serious incident usually has a fairly small and random chance of occurring, and so it is nigh-on impossible to pick the day you need a guard.

Broadly agree - but the difference is the alternative is not a basically qualified guard under a modular education system but no guard at all! Your'e just suggesting all or nothing.
As I see it if the guard is to be preserved, which is what the dispute is about, then compromise is going to be required. You can try and strike forever but that way some form of redundancy eventually lies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I see it if the guard is to be preserved, which is what the dispute is about, then compromise is going to be required. You can try and strike forever but that way some form of redundancy eventually lies.

The trouble is I'm not quite sure where compromise lies. fGW want the guard to be optional. The unions want the guard to be mandatory. It's binary. I don't see how there can be any compromise - it will go one way or the other - either the guard is always required (or the train is cancelled), or the guard is not always required. This will depend on who gives in first.

 

[LateThanNever]

The trouble is I'm not quite sure where compromise lies. fGW want the guard to be optional. The unions want the guard to be mandatory. It's binary. I don't see how there can be any compromise - it will go one way or the other - either the guard is always required (or the train is cancelled), or the guard is not always required. This will depend on who gives in first.

In absolutist terms your'e right! And given that there are already Driver Only trains out there the battle has already been lost. So the RMT position is very weak and they need to compromise as they really rely on whether drivers will accept no guards. And they have in the past and presumably will in the future.
Given that worst group have basically only got a few more years and a lot on their plate during that time I think they could be persuaded to go for a speedy agreement and 'guard lite'! Industrial (in)action does neither their brand nor their finances any good after all and why go through all the grief to fight to the death only for the next franchisee to pick up the resulting savings? And the 'guard lite' could be seen as building on their statement that they will not abolish the guard...
Unless the RMT reach some compromise then I fear that the guard is, as Frazer would say, DOOMED.

 

[Robertj21a]

In absolutist terms your'e right! And given that there are already Driver Only trains out there the battle has already been lost. So the RMT position is very weak and they need to compromise as they really rely on whether drivers will accept no guards. And they have in the past and presumably will in the future.
Given that worst group have basically only got a few more years and a lot on their plate during that time I think they could be persuaded to go for a speedy agreement and 'guard lite'! Industrial (in)action does neither their brand nor their finances any good after all and why go through all the grief to fight to the death only for the next franchisee to pick up the resulting savings? And the 'guard lite' could be seen as building on their statement that they will not abolish the guard...
Unless the RMT reach some compromise then I fear that the guard is, as Frazer would say, DOOMED.

Thank goodness for your summary. To a layman, it's always appeared to be a partly-lost cause from the outset. I'm not saying that I think DOO is a good idea, but any cause is significantly weakened if the arrangement is already in place elsewhere.

 

[Dave1987]

Thank goodness for your summary. To a layman, it's always appeared to be a partly-lost cause from the outset. I'm not saying that I think DOO is a good idea, but any cause is significantly weakened if the arrangement is already in place elsewhere.

I believe this is more than just about FGW though. If First are successful in forcing through DOO on GW then this could set the ball rolling for even further DOO roll out throughout the country. You could potentially end up in the long run with no on board staff on trains at all. That is why this is so crucial to set a president now.

 

[Carlisle]

I believe this is more than just about FGW though. If First are successful in forcing through DOO on GW then this could set the ball rolling for even further DOO roll out throughout the country. You could potentially end up in the long run with no on board staff on trains at all. That is why this is so crucial to set a president now.

That's hardly likely unless DFT invest in gating virtually every UK station for most of the day which will probably require significantly more staff anyway than the number of guards jobs abolished which we already know isn't anywhere near being even remotely financially viable with any present technology

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe this is more than just about FGW though. If First are successful in forcing through DOO on GW then this could set the ball rolling for even further DOO roll out throughout the country. You could potentially end up in the long run with no on board staff on trains at all. That is why this is so crucial to set a president now.

Bearing in mind that there are few ex-InterCity services that don't carry a *third* member of staff doing catering, and sometimes more than that, that seems a very unlikely scenario.

There is a threat to the traditional Guard, but it seems to me unlikely that genuine DOO (i.e. the only member of staff on board being the driver) would really pervade IC type services.

OTOH, I do see regional services following those in Germany, Switzerland etc in being DOO with ticketing entirely by TVM and Penalty Fares for enforcement. That is probably the threat that needs concentrating on.

 

[yorkie]

I believe this is more than just about FGW though. If First are successful in forcing through DOO on GW then this could set the ball rolling for even further DOO roll out throughout the country. You could potentially end up in the long run with no on board staff on trains at all. That is why this is so crucial to set a president now.

A precedent was set many years ago; most UK rail passenger journeys are already made on DOO routes (most of the South East, London Underground, Strathclyde electrics etc)

Some of the staff who help safely carry millions of customers are not too impressed by some of the claims in this thread

Do we really have to keep going round with the same.claims being made again and again?

 

[Aictos]

A precedent was set many years ago; most UK rail passenger journeys are already made on DOO routes (most of the South East, London Underground, Strathclyde electrics etc)

Some of the staff who help safely carry millions of customers are not too impressed by some of the claims in this thread

Do we really have to keep going round with the same.claims being made again and again?

I'm sorry but I cannot and will not agree on your post, what might work fine for Strathclyde Electrics doesn't mean it will work elsewhere as it's akin to a one size fits all which of course is a impossible objective.

In a ideal world, a number of ex NSE routes would be operated along the Strathclyde model that are currently DOO anyway but due to various reasons and not all due to Union objections, it will never happen however much you and supporters of DOO will want.

I have to work alongside DOO services and I would like to see more on board staff but as the DfT aim these days is to run services on a shoe string, it simply won't happen.

Therefore I don't want guards to face uncertainly about their careers, a guard does far more then what most people think they do as they are responsible for the well being of all their passengers on board their train, the driver is responsible for the safe operation of the train itself.

And to say that some of the staff who help carry millions of passengers on DOO services are not impressed by the reasonable reasoning against DOO expansion which is what the DfT want in all but name, I feel insulted by that because if I am not impressed by claims, it's the claims made by pro DOO supporters such as yourself that DOO is okay.

Therefore I fully support my fellow RMT colleagues in their objections to the points led by First/DfT.