W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[LateThanNever]

Ladbroke Grove was a very long time ago (in government terms), lessons were learned but people tend to forget things very quickly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So I imagine the Government think Mr Prescott's Train Protection has provided the complete solution. So I suppose this discussion should be suggesting why it hasn't?

 

[FordFocus]

FGW have said during DOO failure that the guards/TMs will operate the doors using panels in the train, so nothing is getting removed. I still fail to see how drivers doing the doors saves much time, if any especially when the station staff will give a RA signal instead of a the guard giving 2 on the buzzer.

 

[timbo58]

There is a world of difference between properly trained staff operating as guards and a rag tag of managers not really fully trained at all who have been cajoled/persuaded/bullied into either 'refreshing' rules/routes they did when guards (some many years previously) or, even worse IMHO, managers who couldn't even tell you the colour of the rule book and have never done any safety critical job given the merest glance at a rule book and a 5 minute walk up the track and allowed to pass the rules test in 2 weeks (that under normal testing procedures they in reality couldn't pass even with 6 months full training).

Given my own experience (both as a guard for GW and junior manager retrained for times of strike some years back) I'd guess that less than 25% of all 'managers' doing the guards job on strike days could be regarded as fully competent.

Rules/routes training is rigorous, some find it easy, others don't -it's there for emergencies and we always hope we'll never need it, what gets me annoyed is that some damn good guards have been disciplined/retrained or even lost their jobs for rules breaches that FGW are now turning a blind eye to on strike days when it suits them.

'Hypocrites' is way too mild a word for it.

 

[Mag_seven]

I will assume you are young with very little experience in employment law, the only other alternative is that you are a Troll trying to get the staff to bite.

Er excuse me I am not a troll and I am not trying to get anyone to "bite" so please withdraw that accusation.

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, I am only stating what could happen as some sort of "doomsday" scenario - remember the Tories have form in changing employment law!

 

[455driver]

We have one who was fully trained in 3 days, this being a person who has only ever been office based in his short railway career and never ever worked a train or carried out any sort if safety critical work!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Er excuse me I am not a troll and I am not trying to get anyone to "bite" so please withdraw that accusation.

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, I am only stating what could happen as some sort of "doomsday" scenario - remember the Tories have form in changing employment law!

So you are saying that if the unions/staff don't back down the government are well within their rights to sack everyone and employ who they like, I would hazard a guess that any move to change the law to such an extent would lead to a general strike!
That sounds more like a return to the 20s never mind the 70s!

 

[cactustwirly]

It's FGW (doing the government's dirty work) who are responsible for all this, ffs even East Coast (who are getting exactly the same trains) are sticking with the safest method of operation!

Are we even comparing apples with apples?

VTEC makes money and pays premiums, therefore they can afford extras. FGW is on subsidy (I'm guessing this has been decreased in the direct award, therefore savings have to be made). Buffet cars are also cost more to maintain than trolleys.

Also VTEC operate a 'true' intercity service, but FGWs is more like a German 'Regional Express' than an intercity (ignoring Berks and Hants services, but they are getting different trains) With most people on the train for approximately 1.5hrs is a full buffet really necessary?

 

[LowLevel]

I've always said only appropriate operational managers should be acting in their roles during industrial action.

The likes of human resources managers or marketing and financial types and such who appear with a shiny new SCWID card having hardly seen a train before in their life generally get 'sorted out' pretty quickly by the drivers if they're unsuited and drop a clanger - I've heard of everything from 'just' opening the doors off a platform to announcing stations in completely the wrong order as they call at them when it's dark - how you can achieve that with a docket I haven't a clue. Generally they then disappear and aren't heard from again.

I have no problem with guards managers, inspectors and instructors and operations types etc covering work because that's what you expect to happen - the company has to try and keep running somehow. They tend to be trained well and even qualified to assess with a wealth of experience. They should never be coerced into acting against their staff though. Especially when you see them being run into the ground for day after day with minimal if any breaks on 12 hour days etc.

I should say these are general observations about the network and not necessarily commentary on my own TOC as a disclaimer - I've been about a little bit! I've had to train 'contingency' staff in the past for one reason or another and one thing I did do, no matter who they were or they did, was force them to learn the job correctly and thoroughly because whether I liked it or not they might end up doing it and I couldn't live with my self if they hurt one of our passengers as a result. If they didn't put full effort into it their papers weren't signed off until they did - including turning up for late turns on a Saturday for experience etc. To be fair to the folk I worked for at the time we were backed up in this.

I keep promising myself not to read this thread but as ever can't stay away.

 

[Sleepy]

Are we even comparing apples with apples?

VTEC makes money and pays premiums, therefore they can afford extras. FGW is on subsidy (I'm guessing this has been decreased in the direct award, therefore savings have to be made). Buffet cars are also cost more to maintain than trolleys.

Also VTEC operate a 'true' intercity service, but FGWs is more like a German 'Regional Express' than an intercity (ignoring Berks and Hants services, but they are getting different trains) With most people on the train for approximately 1.5hrs is a full buffet really necessary?

Try that with Colchester commuters (approx. 45 - 50 minutes) - they get most upset if buffet car missing from set !!

 

[455driver]

East Coast are getting the underside of an IEP with the insides of an AT300.

I don't believe that a full buffet is needed on the Bristol or Cardiff route (Swansea is different) but I don't think a trolly is right either, something like a mini buffet is ideal as it can provide proper hot food and drinks plus properly cold beers, something a trolley never can.

Maintenance is also a bit of a problem with the heavy maintenance moving to Bristol, Laira has to lose about 160 people but the Management could gave handled both things much better than they have done.

I get the feeling that Management/DaFT were determined to take on the RMT and the RMT fell for it.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't believe that a full buffet is needed on the Bristol or Cardiff route (Swansea is different) but I don't think a trolly is right either, something like a mini buffet is ideal as it can provide proper hot food and drinks plus properly cold beers, something a trolley never can.

That's an option that is available to the operator on the GWML as specified within the IEP Train Technical Specification. The DfT however wanted trolleys only in standard but were happy for VTEC to have buffets (hence why I don't get why the RMT aren't making more of a song and dance about it).

 

[Busaholic]

My wife only travels by train about once a year, usually on quite lengthy journeys though. Last Tuesday was the return day of her first, and probably only, trip this year. Gatwick to Reading was fine, but the connection at Reading for Penzance was half an hour late leaving due to the evacuation (I've chosen the word carefully!) of Coach B 'owing to a blocked lavatory discharging into the carriage, requiring specialist cleaning services'. The Train Manager was, of course, quite exercised with all this, to the extent that her ticket was not examined during the course of the journey or, needless to say, at Penzance. My point is this- what if that train had not had another member of staff on board other than the driver? Would it have left Reading with that blocked lav? If so, it's completely unacceptable.

 

[455driver]

The toilets on the HST cannot discharge itself so I would hazard a guess that it got blocked and people just kept using it and it eventually 'overflowed' due to the movement of the train causing it to slosh about, the fact there would have been many other toilets in other coaches they could have used would have been lost on them.

Oh and in a similar situation on an IEP/AT300 the problem shouldn't occur.
Famous last words.

 

[Rich McLean]

The toilets on the HST cannot discharge itself so I would hazard a guess that it got blocked and people just kept using it and it eventually 'overflowed' due to the movement of the train causing it to slosh about, the fact there would have been many other toilets in other coaches they could have used would have been lost on them.

Oh and in a similar situation on an IEP/AT300 the problem shouldn't occur.
Famous last words.

Well if there was a problem, a message would flash up on the Drivers TMS screen, informing him of the problem. Press accept to then lock the relevant Lav out of use remotely

Of course a TMS screen in the Guards area, or a series of crew call codes over the PA system (ala XC Voyagers) would alert the guard to lock it out of use would be more effecient

 

[Busaholic]

The toilets on the HST cannot discharge itself so I would hazard a guess that it got blocked and people just kept using it and it eventually 'overflowed' due to the movement of the train causing it to slosh about, the fact there would have been many other toilets in other coaches they could have used would have been lost on them.

Oh and in a similar situation on an IEP/AT300 the problem shouldn't occur.
Famous last words.

Well, I wasn't trying to get a discussion going on blocked loos on trains. The last time she travelled, from Alnmouth to Penzance by Cross Country, the train having started from Edinburgh, it was announced at Newcastle that only one loo on the train was in operation, so you can imagine how that was for an eleven hour journey.

 

[455driver]

Well if there was a problem, a message would flash up on the Drivers TMS screen, informing him of the problem. Press accept to then lock the relevant Lav out of use remotely hoping there isn't anyone in there.

Of course a TMS screen in the Guards area, or a series of crew call codes over the PA system (ala XC Voyagers) would alert the guard to lock it out of use would be more effecient

I have edited your post slightly.

Are all the lav doors on the IEP electric or do the normal toilets have manual doors?

 

[yorkie]

My point is this- what if that train had not had another member of staff on board other than the driver?

There is no desire by FGW to run trains without any members of staff on board other than the driver, and FGW are planning to increase the number of on-board staff. The dispute is about aspects such as the role, pay and conditions of those staff.

 

[455driver]

Well, I wasn't trying to get a discussion going on blocked loos on trains. The last time she travelled, from Alnmouth to Penzance by Cross Country, the train having started from Edinburgh, it was announced at Newcastle that only one loo on the train was in operation, so you can imagine how that was for an eleven hour journey.

That is a ridiculous situation!

To be honest, there is a lot of sh-t posted on here most days!
It did make me think about the toilets on the IEPs anyway!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is no desire by FGW to run trains without any members of staff on board other than the driver, and FGW are planning to increase the number of on-board staff.

I know I have asked you this at least 4 times but seem to have missed your reply!
What will the job titles be of these extra staff?
What sort of practical training will they receive in emergency/evacuation situations etc?

And a new one relevant to this thread-
On a 5+5 IEP with the TM in the rear set, who will be responsible for releasing somebody stuck in a loo which has locked itself out of use with them inside?

 

[notadriver]

Ladbroke Grove was a very long time ago (in government terms), lessons were learned but people tend to forget things very quickly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Those on board managers are actually drivers and so are trained in all safety critical items, the proposals with these IEPs are not offering the same method of operation.

Sorry to contradict you but Javelin on board managers are not drivers and are not safety critical. But they are paid more than guards (no commission) and are graded as managers.

 

[Mag_seven]

There is no desire by FGW to run trains without any members of staff on board other than the driver, and FGW are planning to increase the number of on-board staff. The dispute is about aspects such as the role, pay and conditions of those staff.

But there are some that think that FGW have a "hidden agenda" that basically goes along the lines of if you give all operating responsibilities to the driver, ultimately the aim will be to eliminate on board staff as you can justify no need for them on board i.e. this is the thin edge of a wedge.

 

[regulation9]

Ladbroke Grove was a very long time ago (in government terms), lessons were learned but people tend to forget things very quickly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Those on board managers are actually drivers and so are trained in all safety critical items, the proposals with these IEPs are not offering the same method of operation.

This is not true as pointed out by someone else in the thread.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But there are some that think that FGW have a "hidden agenda" that basically goes along the lines of if you give all operating responsibilities to the driver, ultimately the aim will be to eliminate on board staff as you can justify no need for them on board i.e. this is the thin edge of a wedge.

Given a franchise that only runs to 2019 and trains that only arrive in 2017 they would have to act incredibly fast to get even the slightest saving from trying to do this. Seems pointless to do this in my view.

 

[455driver]

Sorry to contradict you but Javelin on board managers are not drivers and are not safety critical. But they are paid more than guards (no commission) and are graded as managers.

Thanks for the correction. Thumbsup smillie.
I know there is one route where the OBM is a qualified driver, I thought (incorrectly) that it was the Javelins, is it Eurostars then?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But there are some that think that FGW have a "hidden agenda" that basically goes along the lines of if you give all operating responsibilities to the driver, ultimately the aim will be to eliminate on board staff as you can justify no need for them on board i.e. this is the thin edge of a wedge.

As FGW are doing the DaFTs dirty work and are also not answering any of the questions put to them most of us think there is a hidden agenda.
After all if their intentions are above board why not answer the questions truthfully!

 

[LateThanNever]

I have edited your post slightly.

Are all the lav doors on the IEP electric or do the normal toilets have manual doors?

So has 'Mr Prescott's Train Protection providing the complete solution' become lav maintenance? If it has we should be ..er .. clear about it.

 

[notadriver]

Thanks for the correction. Thumbsup smillie.
I know there is one route where the OBM is a qualified driver, I thought (incorrectly) that it was the Javelins, is it Eurostars then?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


As FGW are doing the DaFTs dirty work and are also not answering any of the questions put to them most of us think there is a hidden agenda.
After all if their intentions are above board why not answer the questions truthfully!

Well - yes and no. I'm told that the English Eurostar train manager is only trained to drive the train out of the tunnel in an emergency whereas the French crews have a fully qualified driver in addition to the train manager.

I didn't write the other bit (hidden agenda etc) mag_seven did.

 

[455driver]

Thanks NaD, I knew I had heard it somewhere.

 

[theironroad]

There is no desire by FGW to run trains without any members of staff on board other than the driver, and FGW are planning to increase the number of on-board staff. The dispute is about aspects such as the role, pay and conditions of those staff.

This is about fgw varying their safety case with the Orr or rssb or whoever certifies them.

If the safety case means that the train can run doo(p) then there will never be the need to cancel a train again because no guard was available.

What does that mean? It means all spare capacity is stripped out of the guards rosters in terms of depot establishment. There will be no spare or cover guard available when someone goes sick at the last minute or when more people decide to take the Saturday off to go to an event. Saying 'we aim' and 'we have to' have a guard on board are two very very different things. If the guard is not needed on train A then the person they put on train B is not going to be safety crit and will probably be on a much lower rate of pay( at least for new entrants).

Fgw are just the front man here for this government's desire to attack people who stand up for decent jobs with decent pay rather than accept a race to the bottom in order to satisy shareholders, and you can bet fgw are not losing out a penny during these strikes, it will be underwritten by the government.

 

[the sniper]

Well - yes and no. I'm told that the English Eurostar train manager is only trained to drive the train out of the tunnel in an emergency whereas the French crews have a fully qualified driver in addition to the train manager.

Careful now, you'll drive some folks in thread to suicide if they have to contemplate the existence of such extravagant working practices being maintained by those awful belligerents.

Just think, instead of them you could have 15 Carlisle cleaners on one of those trains. Which would be better because more people is better.

 

[LateThanNever]

Careful now, you'll drive some folks in thread to suicide if they have to contemplate the existence of such extravagant working practices being maintained by those awful belligerents.

Just think, instead of them you could have 15 Carlisle cleaners on one of those trains. Which would be better because more people is better.

Well if just one of them were a qualified guard and another couple were cleaners and nice, I think we'd all settle for that...

 

[Carlisle]

What does that mean? It means all spare capacity is stripped out of the guards rosters in terms of depot establishment. There will be no spare or cover guard available when someone goes sick at the last minute or when more people decide to take the Saturday off to go to an event. Saying 'we aim' and 'we have to' have a guard on board are two very very different things. If the guard is not needed on train A then the person they put on train B is not going to be safety crit and will probably be on a much lower rate of pay( at least for new entrants).

Hasn't Southern had an agreement for a fair while to run some services DOO in the event of staff being unavailable in extreme disruption but I haven't heard guards there saying its obliterated all their spare turns

 

[Robertj21a]

This is about fgw varying their safety case with the Orr or rssb or whoever certifies them.

If the safety case means that the train can run doo(p) then there will never be the need to cancel a train again because no guard was available.

What does that mean? It means all spare capacity is stripped out of the guards rosters in terms of depot establishment. There will be no spare or cover guard available when someone goes sick at the last minute or when more people decide to take the Saturday off to go to an event. Saying 'we aim' and 'we have to' have a guard on board are two very very different things. If the guard is not needed on train A then the person they put on train B is not going to be safety crit and will probably be on a much lower rate of pay( at least for new entrants).

Fgw are just the front man here for this government's desire to attack people who stand up for decent jobs with decent pay rather than accept a race to the bottom in order to satisy shareholders, and you can bet fgw are not losing out a penny during these strikes, it will be underwritten by the government.

I'm really not sure how much of this I'm supposed to believe as fact and how much is pure guesswork on your part. In view of your seemingly unsubstantiated comments, my guess is the latter.

If the issue is supposed to be just DOO and the availability/role of a guard etc, why are you bringing in the pay rates of the guy on 'Train B' - if he's a new entrant and is not going to be safety critical then I would certainly hope he/she will be on a much lower rate of pay. Why shouldn't he be ?

Can you provide some evidence that the government is underwriting FGW so that they 'are not losing out a penny during these strikes'. It seems a wild, and dangerous, suggestion to make unless you have hard facts to support it.
.

 

[bnm]

Saying 'we aim' and 'we have to' have a guard on board are two very very different things.

GWR have said, "We have paved the way to ensure a fully qualified guard to be on every SET in passenger service".

Is that form of words not good enough for the RMT belligerents?