Wow, you really do have far too much faith in technology, a complete lack of understanding about a number if procedures and a huge axe to grind against railway staff don't you?!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
DOO on Northern and general discussion on future staffing arrangements
- Thread starter 47802
- Start date
- Status
Wow, you really do have far too much faith in technology, a complete lack of understanding about a number if procedures and a huge axe to grind against railway staff don't you?!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
"Trust the telegraph"...? No, we trust the combination of bells and block instruments, and have procedures to deal with their failure - the same as track circuits (which do sometimes fail 'wrong side', particularly in autumn). If we move towards a complete reliance on GSM-R, how should a driver or guard protect their train in an emergency if it fails?
One person dealing with a large number of passengers can at least patrol the train and provide regular updates - that one person can't be the driver though, as he'll be too busy liaising with the signalman and his Control, fault-finding, going to place protection and so on to deal effectively with the passengers too. Who looks after them whilst (during a 'routine' failure) the driver's gone to place protection and await the assisting train?
One person dealing with a large number of passengers can at least patrol the train and provide regular updates - that one person can't be the driver though, as he'll be too busy liaising with the signalman and his Control, fault-finding, going to place protection and so on to deal effectively with the passengers too. Who looks after them whilst (during a 'routine' failure) the driver's gone to place protection and await the assisting train?
Beveridges
Established Member
I'm not being funny or anything but travelling on a DOO service is still *MUCH* safer than travelling by car. Seeing as the horrendously unsafe Car is considered a viable form of transport I doubt DOO is going to be considered unsafe in the bigger picture.
Yes it's always a balance how far you take health a safety, another example might be if someone is injured on the route of a DLR train do you decide to ban all driverless trains right away and any plans for their future expansion ?highly unlikely I would think
Last edited:
What a silly answer to some valid points / questions. By all means refute them with facts, data and good arguments (the 'it's always been done like that and cannot possibly change' does not fall into that).
Although I am quite sure you are not averse to change and improvements to make things safer and more efficient you do tend to come accross to this neutral observer as someone whose first priority is by and large to defend the status quo.
mtbox
Member
They are currently going through the rule book and are indeed makimg it smaller, except they're not.
What they are doing is removing some rules saying they are "a matter for company instructions" so they put them in the respective companies drivers handbooks.
It's called passing the (rule) book.
Quite a few things are coming out as no longer relevant though (such as the ability for drivers to pass auto signals at danger on their own authority) and others have been significantly rewritten (such as the old T2 and T12 procedures) - so clearly these things are regularly and thoroughly reviewed, and I'm sure - given the risks involved - the use of detonators would be minimised or stopped altogether if it could be justified (implying that, currently, it couldn't be justified).
Either way, it's surely irrelevant? Just as the guard is required to place emergency protection if the driver is incapacitated, surely he would also be required to do the same for whatever procedure might replace it, in the same situation?
Either way, it's surely irrelevant? Just as the guard is required to place emergency protection if the driver is incapacitated, surely he would also be required to do the same for whatever procedure might replace it, in the same situation?
Which may well be true......in which case why do we have trains that are driver only? And as I have pointed out not so long back, we already have driver only trains up here ......they just dont happen to carry passengers.
Any conductor who thinks their role is going to be the same in 10 years is simply deluding themselves
The days of the guard being in charge of the train have indeed long since gone, and presumably the risks associated with non-passenger DOO have been determined to be sufficiently low - the same as those for the existing passenger DOO operations. Neither of those, nor conventional operation with a guard, are completely 'safe' - nothing is - but there are undoubtedly greater risks associated with DOO. Personally, I'd rather not see a wholesale move to a method of working that's 'less safe', and potentially much worse for the overall passenger experience, just to save a relatively small sum of money - and I'm not convinced that there'd be a net saving anyway, once all factors are considered.
in which case, the discussion would simply be what would be the role for the guard if he had no safety duties? Well it would certainly free up more time for revenue collection.
The procedures allowing DOO empty coaching stock and freight have been in place since around the mid 1980s and are far far less stringent than anything required to run passanger trains DOO in actual service
Last edited:
I agree that the cost savings are not all they seem. I have a feeling that it's largely a political move-after all the entire Mcnulty report was re-written for a Tory government so if guess the union bashing comes from that re-write.
Taking into account equipment installation, maintenance (always a LOT of DOO monitors broken or obscured on the GN, fix one and two more break), delays, cost of training drivers and retraining after incidents, increase in off track drivers from DOO incidents, management time for those off track, paying drivers rest day work to cover their jobs etc and the cost savings arnt an instant saving of the guards salary.
What exactly is a lot of DOO monitors broken? Surely you report these anyway?
On a tangent, i do appreciate the roles of guards on train services, and for the most part they do an excellent job.
Keep the guards on the intercity and medium range services. But, for commuter and high intensity inner city services, i see no need.
Most stations in commuter-land will be staffed, and generally, the distance between the stations is a lot more shorter to not warrant the need for the guard.
I did consider wanting to be a guard, and for me, it is an ideal job. However, i want it to be a job that has worth and meaning, and can actually act upon their duties, instead of being in the cab because of too many people in the carriages.
I do think that Merseyrail does not need guards, but by god do Northern need them - in the hundreds.
Keep the guards on the intercity and medium range services. But, for commuter and high intensity inner city services, i see no need.
Most stations in commuter-land will be staffed, and generally, the distance between the stations is a lot more shorter to not warrant the need for the guard.
I did consider wanting to be a guard, and for me, it is an ideal job. However, i want it to be a job that has worth and meaning, and can actually act upon their duties, instead of being in the cab because of too many people in the carriages.
I do think that Merseyrail does not need guards, but by god do Northern need them - in the hundreds.
I'm strongly in favour of guards retaining their safety-critical status and keeping full control of the doors - doing otherwise, and effectively making them RPIs, surely just makes it tempting to greatly decrease their numbers and run trains without them to save more (short term) money. I see no reason why that should significantly affect their revenue protection ability, if full and proper facilities are provided for them to carry out their safety-critical duties from any part of the train!
What 'facts' has HSTHoward posted?
All I can see is somebody with little idea about how things are done (and more importantly why they are done that way) coming on here spouting a load of rubbish and trying to belittle what a guards job actually involves.
If he diod some homework so he copuld post 'factual' snippets then fine but he doesnt and just posts rubbish, rubbish that has been rebuked so many times its getting boring.
I would hazard a guess that a nasty ticket man has upset HSTHoward and he is out to get all the guards sacked/made redundant.
Cameras out of line, blank monitors, flickering screens, graffitied or vandalised mirrors, screens and cameras, monitors out of contrast, demisters failing in mirrors, fuses blown or other power issues.
As I say, always loads out on the GN route awaiting repair meaning that degraded dispatch is used causing delays and possibly compromising safety.
Of course they are reported but it costs money to send staff to fix them and buy new parts etc and costs a lot in delay minutes in the meantime. Plus at some locations failed DOO equipment means platform staff have to be employed.
Absolutely-and the predictable comments that evil ASLEF will 'demand' more money for going DOO-well to right! If they dramatically increase the drivers workload then they need to remunerate accordingly. Going DOO is a major overhaul of a drivers job. I have worked both DOO and with a guard and they are like very different jobs. DOO is far more work for the driver and dumping extra work on people means paying them more.
Can you post a list of 5 locations where the above issues are in situ right now? I d be interested to see this.
ac6000cw
Established Member
I don't really understand this - the safety situation with DOO was sorted out over 25 years ago, and over the intervening time we have had DOO trains running around Glasgow and in southeast England (at least) where pretty much all of the theoretical 'safety' situations raised here must have occurred (and been dealt with).
The safety 'case' is proven by 25 years of real experience, as far as I can see. Also at the time of DOO introduction, ASLEF negotiated a pay supplement for DOO drivers, and the (then) NUR accepted the situation (albeit reluctantly).
Please remember that the railway is a subsidised, monopoly service industry in the UK. So it's probably a bit galling for the large mass of the public who have to pay for it (via fares and taxes), to hear people who work for it say basically 'we've always done it this way, so why should we change'. Other workers have to change their working practices and jobs frequently in order to stay competitive in a global economy, and avoid their jobs being exported to India and China (for example). Railway work seems quite a 'safe' occupation by comparison....
The safety 'case' is proven by 25 years of real experience, as far as I can see. Also at the time of DOO introduction, ASLEF negotiated a pay supplement for DOO drivers, and the (then) NUR accepted the situation (albeit reluctantly).
Please remember that the railway is a subsidised, monopoly service industry in the UK. So it's probably a bit galling for the large mass of the public who have to pay for it (via fares and taxes), to hear people who work for it say basically 'we've always done it this way, so why should we change'. Other workers have to change their working practices and jobs frequently in order to stay competitive in a global economy, and avoid their jobs being exported to India and China (for example). Railway work seems quite a 'safe' occupation by comparison....
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
Its not the we have always done it mentality that exists. It is the it is done this way for a very good reason that exists. Don't confuse the 2
Off the top of my head...
Harringay down 6 car mirror graffitied
Alexandra palace down 3 car screens blank
Hornsey down monitor one camera pointing at the back of platform instead of train
Meldreth down mirror in need of clean as too dirty to see train at night
Old street up monitors flicking on and off
Hatfield demisters not working on down (may now be fixed, hard to tell now winter is over).
That ok for you?
And that's not taking into account all the monitors which at this time of year in bright sunshine are invisible. Such as arlsey and sandy which are almost impossible to see anything in apart from shadows.
Whats the reason why guards acknowledge a second tip with a green flag at Picc, Vic and the airport, but dont do this at Leeds which is bigger than all 3?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Indeed it is thank you. Any idea what the response time is for the contractors to fix these issue ? I d understand if you didnt know as its probably something you are unaware of, but I ll ask anyway.
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
I have no idea. Maybe (As I don't know Leeds) all 3 stations work by the Off & R indicators?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Stockport has had a failed banner repeater for months on Platform 1 In a place where it is very easy to look across to the wrong signal (Hopefully it is fixed now)
Depends. Hard to tell as we don't work the same routes day in day out but I seem to remember a camera was out of alignment for almost 5 months at Potters bar last year-constantly reported but took an age to fix. Was dodgy as a set of doors didn't appear. Many drivers didn't realise as some doors are duplicated so it would be very easy not to realise a door was out of view and trap someone in it.
Other issues can be fixed same day-depends what the problem is and when a team are next in the area.
Now that is very interesting indeed for a few reasons.
All the TOCs ( and Network Rail as well in a very big way ) use Facility Management type outside contractors for issues in this general area. Contracts are drawn up between customer and supplier using traditional time penalty clauses with associated fines if numbers fall below pre agreed targets. Time targets are graded according to seriousness of fault - but anything that impacts on Health and Safety is given an urgent priority....a 2 hour fix is not unusual in this industry.
Did you ever consider using CIRAS when you felt your reporting of issues were not being acted upon ?
I personally didn't consider ciras. After enough drivers had reported the problem a notice went up warning drivers to take care and look back if in doubt but there seemed to be refusal to accept that a set of doors simply did not show up.
I think the worst I have seen was a list taking up an entire page of the late notice tv screen of DOO faults-must have been at least a dozen individual listed reports.
Let's also consider the hot topic if winchmore hill, down platform. They refuse to install screens so it is look back. In the busy periods the volume if people leaving the curved platform means that the driver simply can't see the back of the train until every last person has left the platform. The issue is constantly debated with management but all we are told is to be careful and safety over performance. You can sit there for a good 2 minutes around 1830-1900 on a weekday.
Isn't dispatch by RA used with guards when the signalling system and track layout is such that a SASSPAD would give a high risk of a collision (therefore it is impossible for the RA to be given without a proceed aspect)?
Birmingham New St is the typical example with it's zero overlaps on some signals as well as lack of AWS.
I was just looking at the latest CIRAS reports - and in fact some of the issues you described appear in the section which is for London Underground....I wont post the whole shooting match as its lenghty , but the below quote features.....
If you are told about any damaged or defective mirrors or monitors at a category A platform and a clear view of the entire platform train interface cannot be seen, you must arrange for a member of Station Staff to be positioned on the platform to provide assisted dispatch.
If this is not possible, you must:
close the platform, and
tell the controller
If the platform is classified as Cat B then the Train Operator can self dispatch as they have a clear view of the entire platform from the cab
The above is from The Rule Book......and in fact there is also some comments raised about the very thing I mentioned in regards to contracts and response/fix times....it makes interesting reading
Some of the industry response times to fix faults are little short of shocking no matter what they claim - I know of platform lighting being faulty for months (years if you consider it seems to be a recurring fault) despite regular and multiple reports.
- Status