DOO on Northern and general discussion on future staffing arrangements

[47802]

From a DOO viewpoint if the railway safety bodies are saying its a safe means of operation then you can hardly be surprised that the DFT would want to extend it further if they think it will reduce costs..

Now contrary to some comments previously I'm not anti train crew I even applied for a couple of Trainee Guards positions myself, and clearly if your a Guard your not going to be too happy about it understandably.

But unless somebody can convince the Railways safety authorities that it is an unacceptably unsafe means of Operation then really your on a hiding to nothing.

 

[Moonshot]

From a DOO viewpoint if the railway safety bodies are saying its a safe means of operation then you can hardly be surprised that the DFT would want to extend it further if they think it will reduce costs..

Now contrary to some comments previously I'm not anti train crew I even applied for a couple of Trainee Guards positions myself, and clearly if your a Guard your not going to be too happy about it understandably.

But unless somebody can convince the Railways safety authorities that it is an unacceptably unsafe means of Operation then really your on a hiding to nothing.

As far as I m concerned , there is nothing wrong with DOO....and in fact all TOCs have to present a safety case to be even considered for pre qualifying for a franchise bid. Its is quite ironic that the biggest safety issue of the last few years revolves around platform/train interface - the irony being that the guard of a non DOO operation was imprisoned for the death of a young girl after failing to carry out his own duties safely

 

[muz379]

But there is a National Minimum Wage enforced by government anyway - and there are a lot more employers than just G4s paying it. Employers are named and shamed IF they pay their staff less than that.....and staff are encouraged to whistleblow etc. All taxpayers are also subsidising the whole rail industry.......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Minimum wage is not high enough though ,I wasnt singling out G4s I know a heck of a lot of companies are only paying the minimum wage however those that are paying a working wage are celebrated which is a good thing and I think it shows a responsible business attitude whilst still making a profit . like I said if you work for G4s full time the pay is that low that you are still eligible for and claim state benefits because their pay is so low . Surely that's not right ?

you go out to work full time and yet you still need assistance from the state to survive ? Subsidizing the g4s shareholders to pay their staff minimum wage is very different from subsidizing the railway which benefits a hell of a lot of people

IMO public transport like the railway and buses should always get some level of subsidy because there will always be services and routes that need to remain open to keep communities connected that dont make a profit or dont make enough of a profit to keep accountants happy
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As far as I m concerned , there is nothing wrong with DOO....and in fact all TOCs have to present a safety case to be even considered for pre qualifying for a franchise bid. Its is quite ironic that the biggest safety issue of the last few years revolves around platform/train interface - the irony being that the guard of a non DOO operation was imprisoned for the death of a young girl after failing to carry out his own duties safely

DOO is still not as safe as two man operation surely you must still see that , having that extra member of safety critical staff only adds to safety doesn't take away from it ?

That incident could quite have easily happened with a driver controlling the dispatch , and in fact dangerous occurrences like the lead up to that situation could happen more often . On Busy platforms or when there are a higher number of drunk people about surely you want the whole train to be observed out of the platform , not something the driver could do .

Ive not been doing the job long however I have already had to give the driver 1 on the buzzer after the train started moving - At a point where they would have stopped looking at the platform and focusing on what is in front of them .

 

[Tomnick]

From a DOO viewpoint if the railway safety bodies are saying its a safe means of operation then you can hardly be surprised that the DFT would want to extend it further if they think it will reduce costs..

Now contrary to some comments previously I'm not anti train crew I even applied for a couple of Trainee Guards positions myself, and clearly if your a Guard your not going to be too happy about it understandably.

But unless somebody can convince the Railways safety authorities that it is an unacceptably unsafe means of Operation then really your on a hiding to nothing.

Safety is all relative, of course - nothing is absolutely 'safe'. I don't think there's much doubt that DOO is generally less safe than conventional operation (considering all factors), so it's a matter of whether the cost saving justifies the increased risk (not sure where the other factors - increased potential for delays, poorer customer service and so on - come into it!). As I understand it, though (please correct me if I'm wrong, especially if the following applies only to Network Rail and not the TOCs), there's a conflict of interest in that the body that allocates (much of?) the funding is the same body that determines whether something is 'safe enough' - i.e. the ORR. Even if I'm mistaken on that point, the general issue still stands in that there's intense pressure from above to run the job as cheaply as possible, so it'd be no surprise if certain elements of the risk assessments were played down somewhat...

 

[Moonshot]

Minimum wage is not high enough though ,I wasnt singling out G4s I know a heck of a lot of companies are only paying the minimum wage however those that are paying a working wage are celebrated which is a good thing and I think it shows a responsible business attitude whilst still making a profit . like I said if you work for G4s full time the pay is that low that you are still eligible for and claim state benefits because their pay is so low . Surely that's not right ?

you go out to work full time and yet you still need assistance from the state to survive ? Subsidizing the g4s shareholders to pay their staff minimum wage is very different from subsidizing the railway which benefits a hell of a lot of people

IMO public transport like the railway and buses should always get some level of subsidy because there will always be services and routes that need to remain open to keep communities connected that dont make a profit or dont make enough of a profit to keep accountants happy
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

DOO is still not as safe as two man operation surely you must still see that , having that extra member of safety critical staff only adds to safety doesn't take away from it ?

That incident could quite have easily happened with a driver controlling the dispatch , and in fact dangerous occurrences like the lead up to that situation could happen more often . On Busy platforms or when there are a higher number of drunk people about surely you want the whole train to be observed out of the platform , not something the driver could do .

Ive not been doing the job long however I have already had to give the driver 1 on the buzzer after the train started moving - At a point where they would have stopped looking at the platform and focusing on what is in front of them .

Which is why some stations have platform staff - guards have limited view of the platforms as we only have a narrow view from the window. No matter what your own ( and mine ) personal views are on DOO ( its been done to death a thousand times over on this forum ), its the reality of here and now. And as you are well aware ( or you should be ) , no process makes it to the coalface of the rail industry withouts having being rigourously risk assessed first.

 

[muz379]

Which is why some stations have platform staff - guards have limited view of the platforms as we only have a narrow view from the window. No matter what your own ( and mine ) personal views are on DOO ( its been done to death a thousand times over on this forum ), its the reality of here and now. And as you are well aware ( or you should be ) , no process makes it to the coalface of the rail industry without having being rigourously risk assessed first.

Northern call at more than 500 stations , majority of these are unmanned stations with no platform staff . Your typical Friday and Saturday night diagram when you have drunk people stumbling about all over the shop with no idea of the potential danger they put themselves in sees you calling at more unmanned stations than manned stations which would have to be addressed before DOO was deemed fully safe in my eyes not to mention the mayhem that these people would cause when unchecked on the train

My concern is that the risk assessment process is going to become too polarized and the process itself will not be carried out properly as it is already a foregone conclusion from mcnulty that DOO is safe although that report was commissioned and sponsored by the DFT ,

The risk assessment will also be carried out by people who just have statistics to go from and have never actually been out and worked a train so just see we have had no platform train interface fatalities this year so assume guards must not be actually earning there money

my concerns are not just going forward as a guard either , they are as someone who is hoping to progress onto the driving grade eventually and even as a driver I would want a guard to keep a check on whats going on behind me make sure its safe , and because another safety crit member of staff would be worth their weight in gold in an emergency situation .Guards are hired and expected to be able to deal with customers and the situations that they arise and are trained and expected in a complete emergency to use those skills to keep things under control as much as possible . Drivers are not hired for that and are not versed in that

If DOO where to come about I would take a more serious thought about freight driving instead even though the shifts and conditions arent as good as passenger rail

 

[Moonshot]

Northern call at more than 500 stations , majority of these are unmanned stations with no platform staff . Your typical Friday and Saturday night diagram when you have drunk people stumbling about all over the shop with no idea of the potential danger they put themselves in sees you calling at more unmanned stations than manned stations which would have to be addressed before DOO was deemed fully safe in my eyes not to mention the mayhem that these people would cause when unchecked on the train

My concern is that the risk assessment process is going to become too polarized and the process itself will not be carried out properly as it is already a foregone conclusion from mcnulty that DOO is safe although that report was commissioned and sponsored by the DFT ,

The risk assessment will also be carried out by people who just have statistics to go from and have never actually been out and worked a train so just see we have had no platform train interface fatalities this year so assume guards must not be actually earning there money

I m sorry but you are just waffling now......Risk Assessments are carried out by people with vast experience and skills to match. Its a pre requisite of this industry and of any other which carries a high risk factor from its day to day operations.

 

[muz379]

my concerns are not just going forward as a guard either , they are as someone who is hoping to progress onto the driving grade eventually and even as a driver I would want a guard to keep a check on whats going on behind me make sure its safe , and because another safety crit member of staff would be worth their weight in gold in an emergency situation .Guards are hired and expected to be able to deal with customers and the situations that they arise and are trained and expected in a complete emergency to use those skills to keep things under control as much as possible . Drivers are not hired for that and are not versed in that

If DOO where to come about I would take a more serious thought about freight driving instead even though the shifts and conditions arent as good as passenger rail

 

[muz379]

I m sorry but you are just waffling now......Risk Assessments are carried out by people with vast experience and skills to match. Its a pre requisite of this industry and of any other which carries a high risk factor from its day to day operations.

the people that carry out risk assessments at a local level may well be experienced operational staff that have gone into safety assurance roles , however the people at the DFT that are applying the pressure and will eventually make it happen are shiny new civil service fast track graduates with no real clue how the railway works and will interpret the risk assessment process in a way that suits their aims .

 

[LowLevel]

I m sorry but you are just waffling now......Risk Assessments are carried out by people with vast experience and skills to match. Its a pre requisite of this industry and of any other which carries a high risk factor from its day to day operations.

That's funny - you are showing your position as a jobber now. I know of several safety critical railway risk assessments slung out after completion by people with 'vast experience and skills' (primarily decisions to remove train dispatchers) where someone has looked at them closely and gone 'what is this rubbish?'. Take the cost motivated TPE decision to remove platform dispatchers at Liverpool and Manchester Airport, subsequently binned after someone complained to the ORR.

Or the excellent case on CIRAS where the safety case and risk assessment for self dispatch of some trains at Loughborough referred to a raft of safety features that didn't even exist at that station at the time as it appeared to have been cut and paste from elsewhere.

Inexperienced to the industry managers under pressure to sign things off is what you're looking for.

I am also a bit of a jobber in that I've worked in quite a few places and roles, not just railways over the last few years, and if you believe what you've typed you're an idiot.

I don't believe in DOO because accidents like the one I provided the picture of the driver being dragged out of the cab on a stretcher happen. It's basically accepting that in a situation ranging from a brick through the window to a full blown derailment and overturning passengers could be left to it. As I say, with full investment in rebuilding these Victorian stations and trains and the signalling DOO train dispatch could be acceptable ^on some lines only^. I don't believe they will spend the money though.

 

[Moonshot]

That's funny - you are showing your position as a jobber now. I know of several safety critical railway risk assessments slung out after completion by people with 'vast experience and skills' (primarily decisions to remove train dispatchers) where someone has looked at them closely and gone 'what is this rubbish?'. Take the cost motivated TPE decision to remove platform dispatchers at Liverpool and Manchester Airport, subsequently binned after someone complained to the ORR.

Or the excellent case on CIRAS where the safety case and risk assessment for self dispatch of some trains at Loughborough referred to a raft of safety features that didn't even exist at that station at the time as it appeared to have been cut and paste from elsewhere.

Inexperienced to the industry managers under pressure to sign things off is what you're looking for.

I am also a bit of a jobber in that I've worked in quite a few places and roles, not just railways over the last few years, and if you believe what you've typed you're an idiot.

I don't believe in DOO because accidents like the one I provided the picture of the driver being dragged out of the cab on a stretcher happen. It's basically accepting that in a situation ranging from a brick through the window to a full blown derailment and overturning passengers could be left to it. As I say, with full investment in rebuilding these Victorian stations and trains and the signalling DOO train dispatch could be acceptable ^on some lines only^. I don't believe they will spend the money though.

And how often does a full blown derailment with passegers overturned actually happen?

You also say you dont believe in DOO, but also state that DOO could be acceptable if the investment was made. Kind of contradicting yourself dont you think?

It is true that significant investment would be needed, but the state has shown over the last 12 years or so that it is quite willing to do so. But the state has also told the industry it must reduce its costs....that is an absolute fact whether you like it or not. Do I think that DOO will eventually be UK wide? Yes I do.....which of course will impact on my own role. But I cant say I havent be warned.....so then its down to me to bear that in mind going forward.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

One more thing worth considering is that there is an Election due before the new franchise is due to start and anything can happen if (like widely expected) that the Tories get kicked out on to there Austerity backsides.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the people that carry out risk assessments at a local level may well be experienced operational staff that have gone into safety assurance roles , however the people at the DFT that are applying the pressure and will eventually make it happen are shiny new civil service fast track graduates with no real clue how the railway works and will interpret the risk assessment process in a way that suits their aims .

Thats how i see it as well

 

[47802]

One more thing worth considering is that there is an Election due before the new franchise is due to start and anything can happen if (like widely expected) that the Tories get kicked out on to there Austerity backsides.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Thats how i see it as well

I wouldn't bank on the Tories being kicked out, and if the Scots vote for Independence then its going to be very difficult for the Labour party, in any case don't actually believe they would change much on the railways yes possibly they might be less willing to fight the unions, but that's getting off the point.

Now you can have an endless debate about its safety but the fact is DOO exists, and if or until somebody can prove that its unacceptably unsafe then your likely to get more of it, but at this stage its only a consultation and no doubt the Unions will be expressing their views about it.

 

[northwichcat]

Where did I say I change jobs frequently? And why would I want to be driving a tram when I actually get paid more than a tram driver? If anything, I should really be going for a train drivers job - which is what a fair number of guards actually do anyway

In another thread where people made reference to changes to train timetables making it difficult for them to get to work you said they should change job or move. When someone pointed out moving jobs is easier said than done you disagreed saying you've moved jobs quite a few times and it's very easy. Other rail staff have been in the same role for 15 years +.

 

[muz379]

I wouldn't bank on the Tories being kicked out, and if the Scots vote for Independence then its going to be very difficult for the Labour party, in any case don't actually believe they would change much on the railways yes possibly they might be less willing to fight the unions, but that's getting off the point.

Ive heard a lot of people banging on about the impact that Scottish independence would have on the main parties in Westminster . I went to uni with a lot of people that speculated as you have done that in the very unlikely event that the scots do vote for independence and a majority is reached that labor would never be able to win control of Westminster again . This to me discounts the fact that if the scots did gain independence there would have to be some reconfiguration of the constituency boundaries in the UK as well as perhaps the firing of the starting pistol on a process of constitutional reform in the UK which could see political changes to voting systems and balance of power in parliament in this country

But none of this would be relevant to what is going to happen with this franchise because the process of making Scotland independent will take many years if that is indeed what they vote for in september . And so there is still a chance labour could win the next UK general election . If labour do win the fate of DOO then relies in the hands of their will to battle the unions seeing as the spec has already been set out and bids will be well and truly underway by the time the next government are formed .

Now you can have an endless debate about its safety but the fact is DOO exists, and if or until somebody can prove that its unacceptably unsafe then your likely to get more of it, but at this stage its only a consultation and no doubt the Unions will be expressing their views about it.

its a shame that it is that way and the onus is on proving it unacceptably unsafe in my view

The fact remains that majority of services operate with a driver and a guard . According to the DFT spec only 30% of services are DOO which leaves a majority of 70% still operating with a driver and a guard . The fact that the majority of services still operate with a guard tells me that those wishing to get rid of them should be the ones presenting the case


I mean following your logic we are now seeing it being possible to operate without a driver , so therefore it must be safe and anyone wishing to retain drivers at the front of their train must present a safety case showing it to be unacceptably unsafe to go without a driver .

 

[Moonshot]

Ive heard a lot of people banging on about the impact that Scottish independence would have on the main parties in Westminster . I went to uni with a lot of people that speculated as you have done that in the very unlikely event that the scots do vote for independence and a majority is reached that labor would never be able to win control of Westminster again . This to me discounts the fact that if the scots did gain independence there would have to be some reconfiguration of the constituency boundaries in the UK as well as perhaps the firing of the starting pistol on a process of constitutional reform in the UK which could see political changes to voting systems and balance of power in parliament in this country

But none of this would be relevant to what is going to happen with this franchise because the process of making Scotland independent will take many years if that is indeed what they vote for in september . And so there is still a chance labour could win the next UK general election . If labour do win the fate of DOO then relies in the hands of their will to battle the unions seeing as the spec has already been set out and bids will be well and truly underway by the time the next government are formed .


its a shame that it is that way and the onus is on proving it unacceptably unsafe in my view

The fact remains that majority of services operate with a driver and a guard . According to the DFT spec only 30% of services are DOO which leaves a majority of 70% still operating with a driver and a guard . The fact that the majority of services still operate with a guard tells me that those wishing to get rid of them should be the ones presenting the case


I mean following your logic we are now seeing it being possible to operate without a driver , so therefore it must be safe and anyone wishing to retain drivers at the front of their train must present a safety case showing it to be unacceptably unsafe to go without a driver .

You really are not putting a coherent argument across at all........the safety case for DOO is well proven ......it simply wouldnt be allowed if there was an increase in the risk factor - absolute cold hard fact. Now going back to the prospectus , as pointed out , this is an area of operation which has a requirement to be considered as part of the franchise terms. Which will mean the entire network north of Crewe and south of the scottish border will have to be seriously looked at and risk assessed etc.

 

[LowLevel]

You really are not putting a coherent argument across at all........the safety case for DOO is well proven ......it simply wouldnt be allowed if there was an increase in the risk factor - absolute cold hard fact. Now going back to the prospectus , as pointed out , this is an area of operation which has a requirement to be considered as part of the franchise terms. Which will mean the entire network north of Crewe and south of the scottish border will have to be seriously looked at and risk assessed etc.

On a completely different tangent to the previous debate I would suggest you can discount any DMU operated routes (if only from the lead they're only going DOO in Scotland as they electrify - and only urban routes at that) - it does say only 'applicable' routes. I think you're looking at Manchester/Leeds electric suburban at most even for consideration and only if a decent on train/station refurb solution can be proposed certainly for the pre-333 units. BR DMUs do not lend themselves to in cab DOO equipment like VDUs, I'm told interestingly the same applies to 22x.

 

[Moonshot]

On a completely different tangent to the previous debate I would suggest you can discount any DMU operated routes (if only from the lead they're only going DOO in Scotland as they electrify - and only urban routes at that) - it does say only 'applicable' routes. I think you're looking at Manchester/Leeds electric suburban at most even for consideration and only if a decent on train/station refurb solution can be proposed certainly for the pre-333 units. BR DMUs do not lend themselves to in cab DOO equipment like VDUs, I'm told interestingly the same applies to 22x.

Which may well be the case.....and if it is , then the majority of services in the North will remain as is. Some of the welcome planned investment may well get deferred anyway. But as I ve said earlier, it is well known that there is a potential for DOO operation, which would lead to a job role change for the guard. Nobody cannot say they havent been warned....

 

[WatcherZero]

For shorter DMU's they can do it with platform mirrors rather than onboard CCTV cameras.

 

[Moonshot]

For shorter DMU's they can do it with platform mirrors rather than onboard CCTV cameras.

it is interesting to note just how many drivers actually look out of the window back down the platform - its a very regular occurence.

 

[Geeves]

Just received the latest Northern company spiel in the post

It mentions about the 319s and just to bring it into context here "They will be receiving modifications before they enter service". I can only presume this will be for two man operation, so at least for the start of the 319s they will be Driver AND guard operation.


I for one hope it stays that way.

 

[muz379]

You really are not putting a coherent argument across at all........the safety case for DOO is well proven ......it simply wouldnt be allowed if there was an increase in the risk factor - absolute cold hard fact. Now going back to the prospectus , as pointed out , this is an area of operation which has a requirement to be considered as part of the franchise terms. Which will mean the entire network north of Crewe and south of the scottish border will have to be seriously looked at and risk assessed etc.

Your the one making incoherent arguments . You really think there isn't an increase in risk between one man and two man operation ?

like it or not dispatching the train without A guard/Platform staff (with an ability to stop) observing the train from the rear does increase the risk factor when dispatching .currently the guard can set foot on the platform to check all doors are closed and clear of obstruction and can see the train out of the platform .

Not to mention that during an on board fire or other emergency situation , without another safety critical member of staff charged with looking after passengers there would be another increase in risk factor

It just so happens that I dont agree that this is a risk that should be taken nationally .

and if what you are saying was true about it being proven completely safe with no increase in risk in operating without a guard Driver only operation would be in operation nationally or at least on more than 30% of operations already seeing as Driver only operation has been here since the days of british rail .

it is interesting to note just how many drivers actually look out of the window back down the platform - its a very regular occurence.

And how many start looking forward again once they see you starting your dispatch process ? , My limited experience says that all of the time drivers start looking forward again once they know they are soon going to be getting the buzzes/RA

 

[Moonshot]

Your the one making incoherent arguments . You really think there isn't an increase in risk between one man and two man operation ?

like it or not dispatching the train without A guard/Platform staff (with an ability to stop) observing the train from the rear does increase the risk factor when dispatching .currently the guard can set foot on the platform to check all doors are closed and clear of obstruction and can see the train out of the platform .

Not to mention that during an on board fire or other emergency situation , without another safety critical member of staff charged with looking after passengers,would be another increase in risk factor

It just so happens that I dont agree that this is a risk that should be taken nationally .

and if what you are saying was true about it being proven completely safe with no increase in risk in operating without a guard Driver only operation would be in operation nationally or at least on more than 30% of operations already seeing as Driver only operation has been here since the days of british rail .



And how many start looking forward again once they see you starting your dispatch process ? , My limited experience says that all of the time drivers start looking forward again once they know they are soon going to be getting the buzzes/RA

Lol.....dear me.....

Muz....like it or not, DOO is here right now on the UK network. It matters not one jot what you think.....

 

[muz379]

Lol.....dear me.....

Muz....like it or not, DOO is here right now on the UK network. It matters not one jot what you think.....

I take it this is your acknowledgement that there is an increase of risk factor with DOO ?

 

[Moonshot]

I take it this is your acknowledgement that there is an increase of risk factor with DOO ?

Muz ...if you know better than the safety experts, why dont you apply for a role as one......?

 

[ilkestonian]

...the safety case for DOO is well proven ......it simply wouldnt be allowed if there was an increase in the risk factor - absolute cold hard fact...

???

I'd be interested to see evidence for what you say.

In my opinion, all that can be deduced from the fact that DOO is in operation is that the risk is deemed acceptable, not that it no greater than operation with a guard.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Muz ...if you know better than the safety experts, why dont you apply for a role as one......?

The Majority of the DOO was done in the late 80s and early 90s when BR was in dire straights. If DOO was so successful why hasn't it been expanded rapidly in 20 years? quite simply infrastructure costs do not make it worthwhile in the Majority of areas outside the South East. Its not as if a line has been reopened to certain specifications. Up here we still have a heck of a lot of AB and semaphore signalling many platforms are either very low or with a big gap. Spending on platforms have been minimal to say the least. My opinion is quite bluntly it may be in the prospectus but it would cost network Rail Billions of pounds to upgrade the Network enough to make DOO feasable. I will be very surprised if it is implemented in the next decade at least.

 

[Moonshot]

The Majority of the DOO was done in the late 80s and early 90s when BR was in dire straights. If DOO was so successful why hasn't it been expanded rapidly in 20 years? quite simply infrastructure costs do not make it worthwhile in the Majority of areas outside the South East. Its not as if a line has been reopened to certain specifications. Up here we still have a heck of a lot of AB and semaphore signalling many platforms are either very low or with a big gap. Spending on platforms have been minimal to say the least. My opinion is quite bluntly it may be in the prospectus but it would cost network Rail Billions of pounds to upgrade the Network enough to make DOO feasable. I will be very surprised if it is implemented in the next decade at least.

Yes indeed.....it would cost a heck of a lot of money to upgrade the Network north of Crewe to make DOO feasible. As with any investment funds from the state, a case has to be made based on availabilty of funds in the first place. Indeed there is also a hell of a lot of Absolute Block signalling.....however plans are already in place along with a rolling program of signal box closures to eliminate that.....already we see a huge signalling centre just about to be commissioned at Ashburys which eventually will be responsible for the entire signalling requirements of the North West Network, the first of which is Huyton in the next few weeks.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Yes indeed.....it would cost a heck of a lot of money to upgrade the Network north of Crewe to make DOO feasible. As with any investment funds from the state, a case has to be made based on availabilty of funds in the first place. Indeed there is also a hell of a lot of Absolute Block signalling.....however plans are already in place along with a rolling program of signal box closures to eliminate that.....already we see a huge signalling centre just about to be commissioned at Ashburys which eventually will be responsible for the entire signalling requirements of the North West Network, the first of which is Huyton in the next few weeks.

Have you actually seen the list of the closure dates for these boxes..you are talking a couple of decades at least.

 

[muz379]

Muz ...if you know better than the safety experts, why dont you apply for a role as one......?

you dont need to be a safety expert to realize that in the two main situations I have identified there is an increase in risk between having a driver and guard and having a driver only . Its just common sense to anybody that knows even the slightest about railway operations in those area

Playing devils advocate you could accept that there is a risk increase in place with DOO and yet still argue in favor of DOO by saying the likelihood of a driver being incapacitated or a situation requiring an emergency evacuation is that minute that we can accept the risk and mitigate it with the technology we now have ,as well as dispatchers and emergency stop plungers on platforms.

I think where you are getting mixed up is in thinking that it is my opinion that there is an increase in risk factor from DOO when that is just a cold hard fact , even the people carrying out risk assessments that led to the current DOO have to acknowledge that increase in risk . How do you think the LU emergency stop plunger or the deployment of dispatchers mirrors and cctv at DOO locations comes about ?through an acknowledgement that there is more risk from a driver carrying out dispatch and a need to mitigate that risk . That is not my opinion that is the facts of the matter . The risk assesments that would have been carried out to approve one man operation on the gospel to barking line must have been staggering . And would have taken into account the increased risk at the platform train interface and an emergency between stations . Just so happens that the risk assessors where satisfied with the measures put in place to control those risks . Well they where paid to be satisfied with the measures anyway

And one of the snags with DOO being implemented on the northern network is the need to carry out all of this investment and modify stations and traction to mitigate those risks . If there was no increase in risk northern could have deployed DOO already and would have done so because operationally it means there is less chance of cancelling a train due to staff shortages and it lowers operating costs .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Majority of the DOO was done in the late 80s and early 90s when BR was in dire straights. If DOO was so successful why hasn't it been expanded rapidly in 20 years? quite simply infrastructure costs do not make it worthwhile in the Majority of areas outside the South East. Its not as if a line has been reopened to certain specifications. Up here we still have a heck of a lot of AB and semaphore signalling many platforms are either very low or with a big gap. Spending on platforms have been minimal to say the least. My opinion is quite bluntly it may be in the prospectus but it would cost network Rail Billions of pounds to upgrade the Network enough to make DOO feasable. I will be very surprised if it is implemented in the next decade at least.

This - the vast swathes of DOO that people expected post privatization didn't happen because a franchise is generally not long enough for the TOC involved to put the investment in and reap the rewards and the gov wasn't interested in wholesale investment in the network .


As a result the investment that is now needed isn't to implement DOO its capacity upgrades and rolling stock replacement -can anybody say pacers .

I dont think that the traveling public are going to care or thank the gov for implementing DOO in order to reduce the subsidized operating costs if they are still traveling around on overcrowded , delayed legacy rolling stock .