W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[BestWestern]

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.

Oh yes there is - and unless you have a short memory, you know that very well!

The original intention was always to be able to run fully DOO when it suited; that threat was withdrawn only the strike action began (the strike action certain very vocal members here would like to believe is achieveing nothing at all).

How long before those original intentions resurface once Guards are superfluous is anybody's guess.

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.

Absolutely spot on. The current promises and assurances have a shelf life of a few short years and are largely meaningless.

 

[bnm]

Absolutely spot on. The current promises and assurances have a shelf life of a few short years and are largely meaningless.

Which are all that GWR can give. How can a company which may not be running the trains beyond mid 2019 offer promises and assurances beyond that date?

If the RMT belligerents really are pushing for promises and assurances beyond then, then they really are clueless and on a hiding to nothing.

 

[A-driver]

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?

Lol. You are either incredibly naive or so anti union that you will take anything as gospel. And even the quote you posted simply says they have paved the way, not that there will never be a train running without a fully qualified guard.

Perhaps realise there is more to most industrial disputes than simply what management say in press releases!

 

[Captain Chaos]

Well, let's enlighten everyone as to why there might be an issue. Under 2 years ago a newsletter was published and in it the company stated that IEP would run with full Guard control (guards pertain doors). It stated that how they run in the future would be up to a future franchise holder. Fair enough. Fast forward a bit. New franchise. But it's the same management. Nothing should have changed in their stance, right? Wrong! Now we have the situation we have now. So in a little over 2 years we've gone from one end to the other with the same mangement team in charge. Well, mostly. But I think you can see my point.

 

[BestWestern]

Well, let's enlighten everyone as to why there might be an issue. Under 2 years ago a newsletter was published and in it the company stated that IEP would run with full Guard control (guards pertain doors). It stated that how they run in the future would be up to a future franchise holder. Fair enough. Fast forward a bit. New franchise. But it's the same management. Nothing should have changed in their stance, right? Wrong! Now we have the situation we have now. So in a little over 2 years we've gone from one end to the other with the same mangement team in charge. Well, mostly. But I think you can see my point.

Some I'm afraid really cannot see the point! :-/

 

[Robertj21a]

.
Can someone remind me what happens if there's absolutely no agreement on this issue by the time that the trains are scheduled to enter service. Presumably they stay in sidings and all other cascades etc are shelved ?

Or new legislation is rushed through ?

 

[Captain Chaos]

Some I'm afraid really cannot see the point! :-/

2 years ago management say we will have full door control. Now we won't because it's a new franchise. Which is why there is such disbelief in the proposals. Very few believe them and the persistent way letters keep being written in vague 'we may, we aim' doesn't help.

 

[A-driver]

.

Can someone remind me what happens if there's absolutely no agreement on this issue by the time that the trains are scheduled to enter service. Presumably they stay in sidings and all other cascades etc are shelved ?



Or new legislation is rushed through ?

What new legislation? If drivers refuse to work them then they can't leave the sidings. Unless the new legislation is that they can train new drivers in 2 days to get the units into service?!

 

[bnm]

Lol. You are either incredibly naive or so anti union that you will take anything as gospel. And even the quote you posted simply says they have paved the way, not that there will never be a train running without a fully qualified guard.

Perhaps realise there is more to most industrial disputes than simply what management say in press releases!

So GWR are publicly lying then are they? If so, why aren't the RMT belligerents saying so?

And I'm getting bloody tired of stating I'm anti THIS dispute, not anti union. I remain a paid up union member and paid up Labour Party member.

 

[A-driver]

So GWR are publicly lying then are they? If so, why aren't the RMT belligerents saying so?

And I'm getting bloody tired of stating I'm anti THIS dispute, not anti union. I remain a paid up union member and paid up Labour Party member.

Can't see how the quote you posted and what I said rand they are lying. They simply said they were paving the way. Not giving a cast iron garuntee. And if the FGW propaganda is anything like tfls during the recent night tube dispute then yes, they will lie (or at least be very clever in twisting the truth) to make the unions look like the bad ones. Certainly not uncommon for management to mislead the press during a dispute.

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

If you derail and are blocking the other line(s) there is a chance you could damage the track circuit to return the signal to danger to help prevent a head on collision. With axle counters the circuits are removed and a lot of reliance on GSM-R Emergency Call feature to stop all trains in the area. Two points with this, the driver maybe unavailable to stop trains and if there is a guard in the train (not some RPI with no operational knowledge) they can contact the controlling signaller with their phone or go the old fashion way of clips if the GSM-R is down. That could be a for another discussion though, my main point is the only safety critical person with operational experience on a DOO train is sat in a crumple zone.

OR somewhere as prosaic and common as the brick through the window zone !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This has nothing to do with outdated practices and everything to do with operating the railways as safely as we do now.

The drivers (most if us anyway) don't want increased pay for increased responsibility, we want the safest way ofvworking and that is the driver driving and the guard guarding, just like it is now.

I am all for improvements as long as they are that, improvements, and increasing the drivers workload at the highest workload part of the job (working to a different DOO method than any other DOO train) is not seen as the safest or most sensible way of working especially as they haven't even looked at the drivers workload and the possibility of any problems this could cause, why do you think they haven't done this if they thought the results would be in their favour?

In my opinion, these proposals are based on nothing more than ideology and do not offer any improvements over what we have now at all.

tHIS is ALL about safety. Many, many drivers would take a PAY CUT to avoid DOO ( P )
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

Penzance to Pad and Swansea to Pad aren't "true" intercity services ??????????????

 

[455driver]

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?

Very nice selective quoting (if I didn't know better I would say you are FGW Management )
Can you quote the 2 paragraphs after that one please, just so you post the whole story!

 

[yorkie]

Very nice selective quoting (if I didn't know better I would say you are FGW Management )
Can you quote the 2 paragraphs after that one please, just so you post the whole story!

There is no need to provide full quotes for everything otherwise the forum would be full of quotes repeating the same stuff! People can see the 'full story' by viewing posts in full by clicking the

icons if they wish.

 

[Captain Chaos]

There is no need to provide full quotes for everything otherwise the forum would be full of quotes repeating the same stuff! People can see the 'full story' by viewing posts in full by clicking the

icons if they wish.

I think he is referring to the quotes from the letter and not in the thread?

 

[455driver]

Which are all that GWR can give. How can a company which may not be running the trains beyond mid 2019 offer promises and assurances beyond that date?

If the RMT belligerents really are pushing for promises and assurances beyond then, then they really are clueless and on a hiding to nothing.

RMT belligerents, you really are an <oops> aren't you!
For the twentieth time, the letters sent out by FGW Management are so full of holes and unanswered questions that they are useless, they have been asked straightforward questions but won't give a straightforward answer, if their intentions are noble why won't they answer, oh these are questions relating to the next few years, not the next franchise.
They could answer but choose not too, why do you think that is?
I think it's because they are spoiling for a fight and have deliberately wound the staff up, you had to be at one of the roadshows to see the arrogance of Ben Rule.

FGW have refused to answer any questions or give any sort of guarantees and the dispute rests squarely on their shoulders.

In your mind it will always be the belligerent staff at fault but in this case you are so wrong it's quite sad really!

 

[bnm]

Very nice selective quoting (if I didn't know better I would say you are FGW Management )
Can you quote the 2 paragraphs after that one please, just so you post the whole story!

Okay then, but those two other paragraphs don't say anything that hasn't already been discussed.

"The key issue that remains is that we want the driver to close the doors - which is key to our ability to run the faster, more frequent services, customers should expect from a 21st Century railway. We also believe the driver, with CCTV screens will have a far better view of the train than anyone else to ensure safe dispatch from each station.

"To think that over 2,000 staff could be asked to take more strike action and further inconvenience our customers when all but one of the issues has been dealt with just doesn't make sense." First Great Western looks forward to the RMT's response following full consideration of the proposals."

https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/about-us/media-centre/2015/july/fgw-waiting-for-rmt-response

ASLEF themselves remain silent. Some of their vocal members less so. I, as a passenger, have no issues whatsoever with the proposals.

 

[455driver]

If FGW have 'paved the way blah blah blah' why don't they state 'every IEP/AT300 will have a fully qualified Train Manager on board while in passenger service', that is clear and unambiguous but they won't say it, why not?

 

[BestWestern]

Lol. You are either incredibly naive or so anti union that you will take anything as gospel. And even the quote you posted simply says they have paved the way, not that there will never be a train running without a fully qualified guard.

Perhaps realise there is more to most industrial disputes than simply what management say in press releases!

There are clear problems with the 'assurances' being put on the table, and I think it's fair to say that most people are well able to see those problems, and the wider strategy at play here.

It really isn't difficult.

Okay then, but those two other paragraphs don't say anything that hasn't already been discussed.


https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/about-us/media-centre/2015/july/fgw-waiting-for-rmt-response

ASLEF themselves remain silent. Some of their vocal members less so. I, as a passenger, have no issues whatsoever with the proposals.

Aslef remain silent because they can do little else... They've not been approached yet, which is part of the strategy.

I have no problem with people who are strong minded enough to simply say that they support DOO; you can then have a sensible debate. However, the 'I really can't see what the RMT's problem is' pantomime is over and done with; can we stick to the obvious facts and avoid the tedium?

 

[Captain Chaos]

Ok. So tell me how it's CLEAR that the driver operating the doors is going to be KEY to operating the much faster timetables? Because common sense tells me it's because of faster acceleration, less dwell time because of no need to slam doors and some services having less stops due to timetable improvements...

 

[455driver]

The driver closing the doors and getting the RA is no quicker than the TM closing them and giving 2 on the buzzer so that bit is bull.

The driver is best placed to view the monitors-
As the train leaves the driver will have to look at the door monitors, out the windscreen and eventually the in cab signalling, all at the same time. Give the TM the door monitors and a big red button and the drivers workload is halved for now and reduced by a third in the future.

ASLEF remain silent because they have not been involved in any meaningful talks despite asking several times, they were invited into the last round of talks but Management (Mark Hopwood) tried to add an extra bit about the 165/166's operating DOO when transferred to Bristol (the famous 'just nipping out to print something off'), ASLEF told them they were there to discuss the IEPs and the talks broke down.

Management are being belligerent, not the unions or staff.

 

[ainsworth74]

I would give them that it might be quicker for the driver to open the doors but I completly agree that I can't see how it can be quicker for the driver to close the doors. Perhaps someone should compare the average dwell time of an sub-urban SWT service (where the guard, I believe, opens and closes the doors) with a similar SE or GN service (where the driver does both). I can't help but suspect that the SWT service will be a bit quicker if for no other reason than the guard can make extensive use of a loud whistle to hurry people onto the train.

 

[BestWestern]

ASLEF remain silent because they have not been involved in any meaningful talks despite asking several times, they were invited into the last round of talks but Management (Mark Hopwood) tried to add an extra bit about the 165/166's operating DOO when transferred to Bristol (the famous 'just nipping out to print something off'), ASLEF told them they were there to discuss the IEPs and the talks broke down.

Management are being belligerent, not the unions or staff.

And people think it's the Unions being underhand and aggressive!! :roll::roll:

 

[Carlisle]

Give the TM the door monitors and a big red button and the drivers workload is halved for now and reduced by a third in the future.

So we've recently had loads of posts on here saying how lethal it's going to be a abandoning traditional guard dispatch methods for in cab DOO monitors but your now saying the guard can rely on exactly the same type of dispatch monitors with no problem at all l

 

[Captain Chaos]

So we've recently had loads of posts on here saying how lethal it's going to be a abandoning traditional guard dispatch methods for in cab DOO monitors but your now saying the guard can rely on exactly the same type of dispatch monitors with no problem at all l

Well, if it's good enough for the driver then it should be good enough for Guards! It's 100% safe and better, right?

 

[FordFocus]

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.

Hang on, wasn't it posted very early on this thread that FGW would run these trains as DOO if a Train Manager isn't available during 'disruption' but would pick one up on route?

So here's a question... What's classed as disruption? It's can be very broadly interpreted. Are we talking a meltdown of the signalling equipment so we have a situation where Paddington has no Train Managers all of a sudden or are we talking where a train can leave on time in DOO rather than get hit by a 10 minute delay whilst a TM is sourced?

It opens a door where FGW won't have to keep up established numbers of Train Managers. You end up in a situation where FGW won't have any cover turns or spare men sat in the messroom that can work trains in the event of disruption with more and more trains been sent out DOO.

TOCs are very good at slowly letting the staffing numbers decline and then the union has to get involved or the DfT. Look at the situation on Thameslink under both FCC and Govia, they never kept on top of driver numbers that were leaving and the service went downhill once the remaining drivers declined to do overtime.

The only argument I've heard by FGW for drivers operating doors is it's allegedly quicker. 9 car IEP will have to be dispatched by RA by station staff at some stations, this can actually a bit slower than 2 on the buzzer by a guard depending on the location of the CD/RA equipment box. It's a load of rubbish.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Management are being belligerent, not the unions or staff.

Agreed. Although describing management as 'belligerent' and not the RMT will upset bnm so be careful you don't get a warning for that 455driver

 

[A-driver]

So we've recently had loads of posts on here saying how lethal it's going to be a abandoning traditional guard dispatch methods for in cab DOO monitors but your now saying the guard can rely on exactly the same type of dispatch monitors with no problem at all l

Show some quotes where anyone has stated DOO is lethal please. Can't find any? Didn't think so, perhaps stop trying to exaggerate things way out of proportion.

People with experience of working both DOO and non DOO are am stating that DOO will never be AS safe as a guard. Even the rail companies won't argue that.

There is a difference between dangerous (or lethal as you seem to put it) and less safe.

 

[455driver]

So we've recently had loads of posts on here saying how lethal it's going to be a abandoning traditional guard dispatch methods for in cab DOO monitors but your now saying the guard can rely on exactly the same type of dispatch monitors with no problem at all l

When i was a guard I preferred to use the mark 1 eyeball either through the open cab window (Desiro/458) or the open crew door (455), as we must have technology (coz it's betta) then give the Guard the monitors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, if it's good enough for the driver then it should be good enough for Guards! It's 100% safe and better, right?

If droplights are not practical, allowing the Guard to view bodyside CCTV images during departure would be a real safety gain. Costly, though, as you'd need the monitors in lots of places.

As the IEP is the first potentially guard-operated train built in many years that has doors that are not out of gauge when open, could the idea of viewing departure through an open door be revisited? Seems it is not completely banned on Merseyrail, and it is still usual practice in a good number of other European countries.

 

[455driver]

So we've recently had loads of posts on here saying how lethal it's going to be a abandoning traditional guard dispatch methods for in cab DOO monitors but your now saying the guard can rely on exactly the same type of dispatch monitors with no problem at all l

Who says it's lethal?
Nobody because DOO is safe, it's just that crew working is safer, but hey don't let the truth get in the way of a dig at the staff who are expected to reduce safety because of a political ideal!

 

[tsr]

If droplights are not practical, allowing the Guard to view bodyside CCTV images during departure would be a real safety gain. Costly, though, as you'd need the monitors in lots of places.

As the IEP is the first potentially guard-operated train built in many years that has doors that are not out of gauge when open, could the idea of viewing departure through an open door be revisited? Seems it is not completely banned on Merseyrail, and it is still usual practice in a good number of other European countries.

As an off-area example, Southern have banned watching the train out of the station through an open door for guards operating 455s - on the grounds that a passenger may try and jump into the cab when the train is moving, or that the guard may fall out should they lose their balance. It is still entirely possible but just forbidden. Of course, had the bell or an emergency alarm handle been fitted by the droplight windows, they could just watch out of those. I think it is unlikely that any passenger doors on IEP trains will be allowed to be open after gaining interlock, as they will presumably be fairly wide and the vestibules will probably be open for all passengers in the mean time, so it would be easier for a passenger to access the open door or want to jump in. Cab doors might work, especially if a guard could draw some sort of half-height barrier across the door before giving two on the bell. Such a barrier could also be used to allow ventilation if the train is stranded during hot weather.

Of course, all this is somewhat academic as it is entirely possible that any guard dispatch on IEPs will be deemed to be safe behind a closed door with no droplight - just like on, say, a 377. It is less safe than a droplight, but probably safer than DOO, and in any case you can see a fair bit of the platform by choosing your position carefully (just not as much).