W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[Carlisle]

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!

I wasn't having a dig at anyone, just saying an argument over what's safe could go on forever depending on ones viewpoint,technology available etc ,for example if you'd never had any DOO , trains may not have CSR or GSMR yet,is that safer ?

 

[455driver]

CSR was actually better than GSM-R in a few ways (area code being displayed so you know who you are talking to, for one), although both are very good radio systems.

 

[Goldfish62]

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.

Since SWT abandoned the mandatory requirement for guards to check that the train is on the platform before releasing the doors, door release is often instantaneous with the train coming to a halt - but not consistently so as some guards still do the check, or are carrying out revenue duties as the train comes to a halt. However, the guard blowing the whistle works wonders in hurrying people along to board, so overall I can't see how there's much if anything in it as regards comparative dwell times.

 

[regulation9]

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?

The letter I got on Saturday says this (directly quoted from the letter).

'A Safety competent guard on every train - our current proposals maintain a safety competent guard on every Super Express Train and every Turbo cascaded to the West. This means that these trains will NOT be Driver Only Operated. All Train Managers and Conductors will be required to maintain the same competencies as today, including operation of the doors in an emergency.'

Guard on every train. Staff keep same competencies as currently. Is that not the statement you are after?

 

[455driver]

Since SWT abandoned the mandatory requirement for guards to check that the train is on the platform before releasing the doors, door release is often instantaneous with the train coming to a halt - but not consistently so as some guards still do the check, or are carrying out revenue duties as the train comes to a halt. However, the guard blowing the whistle works wonders in hurrying people along to board, so overall I can't see how there's much if anything in it as regards comparative dwell times.

As far as I know it's only the new guards that are instantly releasing without checking, although a lot of old guard are doing it when their route knowledge means they are 100% certain the train is accommodated, otherwise they are still opening their local door to check which only takes 5 seconds anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The letter I got on Saturday says this (directly quoted from the letter).

'A Safety competent guard on every train - our current proposals maintain a safety competent guard on every Super Express Train and every Turbo cascaded to the West. This means that these trains will NOT be Driver Only Operated. All Train Managers and Conductors will be required to maintain the same competencies as today, including operation of the doors in an emergency.'

Guard on every train. Staff keep same competencies as currently. Is that not the statement you are after?

As I haven't got that letter yet I can't really comment, when I have read the full letter I will comment.

Oh for what it's worth, my issue us with the driver operating the doors and monitors causing a distraction, if they are still proposing the DOO with a competent guard then no it doesnt address my concerns.

 

[BestWestern]

The letter I got on Saturday says this (directly quoted from the letter).

'A Safety competent guard on every train - our current proposals maintain a safety competent guard on every Super Express Train and every Turbo cascaded to the West. This means that these trains will NOT be Driver Only Operated. All Train Managers and Conductors will be required to maintain the same competencies as today, including operation of the doors in an emergency.'

Guard on every train. Staff keep same competencies as currently. Is that not the statement you are after?

"...until the next franchise..."

As has been said, many times; meaningless empty promises.

 

[Mag_seven]

Are there any further talks planned - or is it now a fight to the death?

 

[455driver]

If the letter states that the fully competentTM will retain full control of the doors then yes that would sort out that part if the dispute, if they are still expecting the driver to do the doors then no it doesnt because they will just force through the rest of it at the next Franchise.

 

[Aictos]

Operation of doors in a emergency? That to me says while they be keeping guards on the trains, it be more a Strathclyde operation where the driver has full operation over doors and the guard is reduced to a ticket examiner so won't be safety critical at all.

My argument is it should be operation of doors at all times and not just in emergencies.

 

[bnm]

"...until the next franchise..."

As has been said, many times; meaningless empty promises.

And pray tell, how can GWR make any promises for the next franchise? That's not something within their gift.

because they will justly force through the rest of it at the next Franchise.

Who's they?

 

[Carlisle]

They can always seek to employ those that would agree though. And those that don't agree will be sent packing with their P45's (don't dismiss this - the Tories are in power and are not exactly friendly to unions!)

Didn't a scenario similar to what you describe actually happen with P&O European ferries some years back when they were sent their p45s while on strike and at one or two bus companies soon after privatisation ?

 

[455driver]

And pray tell, how can GWR make any promises for the next franchise? That's not something within their gift.
Who's they?

By giving the TM's sole operation of the doors making it much more difficult for them to get rid of of the TM's in future. If the driver is doing the doors then the train is DOO whether it has a 'fully competent' TM on board or not.

DaFT!

 

[Robertj21a]

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?!

Any new legislation that the government decides may be necessary to bring a halt to whatever stalemate exists at the time. Drivers are, I assume, unlikely to be willing to break any new law that had to be introduced ?

In a total stalemate situation, where there is significant disruption caused to key transport facilities, I would expect any government to - eventually - be forced to take action to resolve it, however unpalatable that may be to either/both/all parties involved.

 

[Aictos]

By giving the TM's sole operation of the doors making it much more difficult for them to get rid of of the TM's in future. If the driver is doing the doors then the train is DOO whether it has a 'fully competent' TM on board or not.

DaFT!

Exactly, hence my point above in which they clearly mention about operation of doors and I quote in bold >

'A Safety competent guard on every train - our current proposals maintain a safety competent guard on every Super Express Train and every Turbo cascaded to the West. This means that these trains will NOT be Driver Only Operated. All Train Managers and Conductors will be required to maintain the same competencies as today, including operation of the doors in an emergency.'

So what's the difference between the train managers and conductors being responsible for the doors as is case at the moment and only being responsible for the doors in a emergency, it to me looks very much like the dumbing down of the role that this grade does and the push for DOO.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Will all stations the SETs will stop at have platform staff to dispatch the trains?

 

[455driver]

Will all stations the SETs will stop at have platform staff to dispatch the trains?

No, not a chance in hell of that happening, there are lots of stations the HSTs stop at which are unstaffed at certain times if the day.

 

[LateThanNever]

By giving the TM's sole operation of the doors making it much more difficult for them to get rid of of the TM's in future. If the driver is doing the doors then the train is DOO whether it has a 'fully competent' TM on board or not.

DaFT!

But Cross Country drivers open the doors! They close them with the OK of the Guard.
Feel that striking for door operation is nuts.
But it isn't for a requirement that competent Guards are essential for every train - which would be much more transparent.
That I know has been lost, so a compromise would have to be reached but make it that they are for every train that has more than X miles between stops - or have no stations within X miles of stops - and the public might understand better.
The Guard position is on a sticky wicket so they have to be innovative!

 

[A-driver]

Any new legislation that the government decides may be necessary to bring a halt to whatever stalemate exists at the time. Drivers are, I assume, unlikely to be willing to break any new law that had to be introduced ?



In a total stalemate situation, where there is significant disruption caused to key transport facilities, I would expect any government to - eventually - be forced to take action to resolve it, however unpalatable that may be to either/both/all parties involved.

You miss the point. So all the drivers refuse to work the trains and new legislation comes in saying they must. They all still refuse. FGW sacks them all using this new legislation. They now have no drivers and start recruiting more meaning FGW have no train drivers for at least 18 months. Never going to happen is it. Let's be realistic here.

 

[BestWestern]

Exactly, hence my point above in which they clearly mention about operation of doors and I quote in bold >

'A Safety competent guard on every train - our current proposals maintain a safety competent guard on every Super Express Train and every Turbo cascaded to the West. This means that these trains will NOT be Driver Only Operated. All Train Managers and Conductors will be required to maintain the same competencies as today, including operation of the doors in an emergency.'

So what's the difference between the train managers and conductors being responsible for the doors as is case at the moment and only being responsible for the doors in a emergency, it to me looks very much like the dumbing down of the role that this grade does and the push for DOO.

Precisely. "Doors in an emergency" is an absolute nonsense and a very poor attempt at trying to convince the RMT that the Guards' grade is not about to be obliterated. It failed, of course.

 

[Robertj21a]

You miss the point. So all the drivers refuse to work the trains and new legislation comes in saying they must. They all still refuse. FGW sacks them all using this new legislation. They now have no drivers and start recruiting more meaning FGW have no train drivers for at least 18 months. Never going to happen is it. Let's be realistic here.

I fully accept that it's very unlikely to happen but, with respect, I certainly haven't 'missed the point'.

If new legislation made certain areas of public transport into 'essential services' where strikes, or similar disruptive action, was outlawed then the train drivers in dispute would be up against the law, not FGW. I doubt that many drivers would want to risk a criminal record, so would (albeit very reluctantly) take the trains out after all.

Although I've agreed that it's very unlikely to happen, it is still a possibility if the dispute remained in stalemate - presumably, you are just assuming that FGW will back down (and leave the issue for the next franchise holder) ?.

 

[BestWestern]

You miss the point. So all the drivers refuse to work the trains and new legislation comes in saying they must. They all still refuse. FGW sacks them all using this new legislation. They now have no drivers and start recruiting more meaning FGW have no train drivers for at least 18 months. Never going to happen is it. Let's be realistic here.

Ah, but don't forget that FGW can produce fully competent Traincrew in a few days, when there happens to be something of a lack of existing staff available...

 

[Carlisle]

You miss the point. So all the drivers refuse to work the trains and new legislation comes in saying they must. They all still refuse. FGW sacks them all using this new legislation.

Do you really think every driver would opt for the uncertainty of possible long term unemployment purely on principle if it came to the crunch , I'm sure some would but it's by no means certain the majority or all of them would do so

 

[Captain Chaos]

Do you really think every driver would opt for the uncertainty of possible long term unemployment purely on principle if it came to the crunch , I'm sure some would but it's by no means certain the majority or all of them would do so

I'm wondering what the European Court of Human Rights would say about using legislation to sack someone. Pretty sure using legislative powers to change the staffing of a private company would be highly illegal and an abuse of power...

 

[bnm]

:roll:

I'm wondering what the European Court of Human Rights would say about using legislation to sack someone. Pretty sure using legislative powers to change the staffing of a private company would be highly illegal and an abuse of power...

And if the Tories decide to leave the ECHR...?

Four and a half more years of Nasty Party rule to go...

 

[LowLevel]

But Cross Country drivers open the doors! They close them with the OK of the Guard.
Feel that striking for door operation is nuts.
But it isn't for a requirement that competent Guards are essential for every train - which would be much more transparent.
That I know has been lost, so a compromise would have to be reached but make it that they are for every train that has more than X miles between stops - or have no stations within X miles of stops - and the public might understand better.
The Guard position is on a sticky wicket so they have to be innovative!

I've got that lovely spinning in circles feeling again.

XC Voyagers use a slow system of door operation where the driver is effectively the guards finger on the door close button but using a buzzer rather than a series of nervous system connections to control it. The guard still decides when the train moves.

How can you have a genuine guard that is in charge of the train when they have no say over when it can depart as is proposed for these trains as it's apparently quicker and more efficient. Furthermore said guard isn't in charge of the train when it's cleared off as far as Oxford without them to avoid waiting 10 minutes or paying rest day work or similar.

Therefore the guard is not a guard. They might be a 'train manager' but a guard they aren't as they aren't in charge in any way shape or form of how the train runs. The definition of driver/guard operation is that the driver operates the train according to the guard's instruction. This is not the case here, hence this silly 'Driver Controlled Operation' buzzword.

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm wondering what the European Court of Human Rights would say about using legislation to sack someone. Pretty sure using legislative powers to change the staffing of a private company would be highly illegal and an abuse of power...

My original point didn't suggest that the legislation was to sack anyone, it was to make certain 'essential' activities unlawful.

 

[A-driver]

My original point didn't suggest that the legislation was to sack anyone, it was to make certain 'essential' activities unlawful.

But this is where a strong union where people stand together (like in Aslef) will help. They can legislate as much as they like but if the entire workforce with union backing refuse to accept it then there is little that will happen. The courts are never going to prosecute all 2000 (or how ever many FGW employ) drivers. And if they target only a few then the strikes will be extended. As I say, if you sack the entire workforce you have at least 18months with no train drivers and no train service. That's never going to be an option.

The Tory proposals may affect board unions like RMT and unite but not a strong specialist union like ASLEF.

 

[Carlisle]

If the letter states that the fully competentTM will retain full control of the doors then yes that would sort out that part if the dispute, .

But a letter worded that way would in simple English just amount to an admission from FGW/DfT that they had conceded everything and gained nothing from this dispute whilst the RMT had given no ground whatsoever , is that a realistic outcome ?

 

[A-driver]

But a letter worded that way would in simple English just amount an admission from FGW/DfT that they had conceded everything and gained nothing from this dispute whilst the RMT had given no ground whatsoever , is that a realistic outcome ?

I don't see why it would be that realistic. The RMT have fought hard for it rather than just made 'threats'. The RMT have spent a fortune organising and balloting the action and the staff have lost a lot of pay over it. I wouldn't say that means they have given nothing.

 

[Carlisle]

I don't see why it would be that realistic. The RMT have fought hard for it rather than just made 'threats'. The RMT have spent a fortune organising and balloting the action and the staff have lost a lot of pay over it. I wouldn't say that means they have given nothing.

Yes I agree it's very hard for staff to sacrifice their wages that definitely won't have been easy doing that ,but some on here say the RMT will just go on calling strikes for months/years on end in this dispute until all their demands are met and If that's true I'm sure government simply won't standby and tolerate this sort of thing forever on our railways