DOO on Northern and general discussion on future staffing arrangements

[Moonshot]

Are people on here still seriously claiming that DOO is no more risky than guard worked trains? I have never heard such rubbish.

At my company stop shorts and wrong side releases are very common. And in a few recent incidents people jumped from trains not platformed onto the ballast. My company is 100% DOO.

Stop shorts and wrong side releases are both incidents almost exclusive to DOO. And both pose a very real risk to public safety. The industry recognises that spads, whilst serious, are rarely dangerous. Passing a red signal by half a coach length is unlikely to harm anyone. Stopping short or wrong side releasing is highly likely to see people falling or jumping out risking injury or worse. They are the most dangerous incidents on the railway.

Infact the industry recognises that DOO has risks. Certain departments in the ORR are petrified of the dangers of DOO. A certain DOO toc was recently threatened with having its DOO licence withdrawn due to the worryingly high number of dispatch and PTI incidents. Quite what that would have led to in reality is anyone's guess but serious threats were made and the company concerned took it very, very seriously.

But DOO is still seen as cheaper. It's far from the cost saving measure it appears to be but the railway is obsessed by saving with the left hand but indirectly spending even more with the right.

And of course the big pull factor to DOO is an anti-union government spoiling for a fight. And sadly people can be thick enough to believe that cutting down on guards will mean their ticket prices drop!

But stop shorts also happen on trains with guards......and guards have been known to release doors wrong side as well.

 

[Tomnick]

I didn't think that there was any doubt that DOO brings with it increased risks, but that the question is whether the savings to be made outweigh the potential cost of those increased risks (in very crude terms, will the money saved be more than enough to pay for the odd passenger that's killed or otherwise injured as a result). I'd have thought that the opportunity for trains to stop short and release doors, wrong side release, passing the platform starter at danger and so on would be obvious to anyone involved in the running of trains.

 

[muz379]

If DOO brought an increase in risk - it wouldnt get accepted in this industry

Loads of things get introduced that bring with them an increase with risk .
Putting OHLE through vic brings an increase in risk that someone might try and climb on a passing freight move and get juiced (has happened elsewhere in and around Manchester)

But the risk is qualified with control measures be it sign warning of the high voltage etc etc .

DOO does increase risk . There are no two ways about that its a fact . There is an increase in risk at the PTI and in emergency situations

just because someone has accepted these risks and decided that they are small enough to discount does not mean the risks are not there .

 

[Moonshot]

Its somewhat clear that a few posters on here have a very entrenched view on safety and risk etc......but lets make one thing absolutely 100% clear. There is no such beast as a 100% risk free activity. Safety is governed by ALARP - As Low As Is Reasonably Practical.

 

[muz379]

and some posters on here have a very relaxed attitude towards safety . risk assessments have to go down the road of thinking what is the worst risk for any given activity and then if said risks are to be taken they must be qualified by looking at what is the likelihood ,worst outcome and diligent control measures that can be put in place . It should never and is never just a case of well they do it like this so lets do it like this ourselves .Why have TPE got emergency window hammers on their trains and Northern haven't ?. surely northern dont have them so tpe dont need them either or is it the other way round TPE have them so should northern ?

working in the railway you should be used to such entrenched attitudes towards safety , it takes an age to bring about any change on the railway that impacts upon safety which in my opinion is one of the reasons safety is at an all time high .the process actually requires thought not a case of following precedent or some whim or operating at the bare minimum requirements which is the case in a lot of other industries

Its somewhat clear that a few posters on here have a very entrenched view on safety and risk etc......but lets make one thing absolutely 100% clear. There is no such beast as a 100% risk free activity.

This is the point people have been trying to get accross to you , just because there hasnt been a fatality and DOO is used as a method of work does not mean it is risk free or doesnt increase risk .
its just that the level of risk is acceptable to those carrying out the risk assessment

 

[Moonshot]

and some posters on here have a very relaxed attitude towards safety . risk assessments have to go down the road of thinking what is the worst risk for any given activity and then if said risks are to be taken they must be qualified by looking at what is the likelihood ,worst outcome and diligent control measures that can be put in place . It should never and is never just a case of well they do it like this so lets do it like this ourselves .Why have TPE got emergency window hammers on their trains and Northern haven't ?. surely northern dont have them so tpe dont need them either or is it the other way round TPE have them so should northern ?

working in the railway you should be used to such entrenched attitudes towards safety , it takes an age to bring about any change on the railway that impacts upon safety which in my opinion is one of the reasons safety is at an all time high .the process actually requires thought not a case of following precedent or some whim or operating at the bare minimum requirements which is the case in a lot of other industries



This is the point people have been trying to get accross to you , just because there hasnt been a fatality and DOO is used as a method of work does not mean it is risk free or doesnt increase risk .
its just that the level of risk is acceptable to those carrying out the risk assessment

So Ill just repeat my earlier post .......if you think you can do better, then simply apply for a role as a safety expert whose sole job is risk assessments.

 

[muz379]

there isn't any role where the sole job is carrying out risk assessments , otherwise I might just apply . Maybe if or when roles become available in safety assurance or standards I could give some thought to turning my career in that direction and set about being a "safety expert"

anyway I wasn't necessarily just talking about DOO when I said that , I was talking about the risk assessment process generally . I mean like I said OHLE carries risks , the risks are clearly acceptable to those that risk assess OHLE . I dont see an issue there personally .

 

[A-driver]

But stop shorts also happen on trains with guards......and guards have been known to release doors wrong side as well.

Have been known to, yes. But common? Far from it.

Trains with guards can stop short but not release doors-again not saying it never happens but it is incredibly rare for a guard worked train to encounter stop shorts or wrong side releases. However it's is worryingly common with DOO and the point is that these incidents are by far the most dangerous on the railway when compared to immediate and obvious risk to people.

The point was also answering the question that has been asked a few times on in what way is DOO a risk.

 

[ivanhoe]

What is ultimately driving all of this is the size of the Northern Subsidy. I am no expert but from what I have read from some Posters on here , is that there is a financial cost to go to DOO. Now this cost will come from a different pot of money and therefore it will give the impression that tremendous savings are being achieved whilst the debt increases on Network Rail. Northern guard has intimated that there is a huge difference in the infrastructure on many parts of the Northern network from say the areas that are DOO already. I would like to see an honest appraisal with a full financial benefit analysis before I put my name to DOO. Guards also provide a presence which is an important safety aspect to passengers.

 

[northwichcat]

What is ultimately driving all of this is the size of the Northern Subsidy. I am no expert but from what I have read from some Posters on here , is that there is a financial cost to go to DOO.

In the case of using 319s with the guard releasing the doors there would also be a cost involved with not going over to DOO.

Guards also provide a presence which is an important safety aspect to passengers.

I think it's important to remember making the driver release and close the doors isn't automatically the same as not having any on board staff other than the driver. You could argue having the driver release the door will improve PPM as the guard sometimes doesn't get to the back of the train in time to release the doors. In turn that could reduce financial penalties for late running. On Mid-Cheshire services it's very common for the guard not at the door controls by the time the train stops. (The Mid-Cheshire line being one where a lot of tickets can be sold by the guard.)

 

[ivanhoe]

In the case of using 319s with the guard releasing the doors there would also be a cost involved with not going over to DOO.



I think it's important to remember making the driver release and close the doors isn't automatically the same as not having any on board staff other than the driver. You could argue having the driver release the door will improve PPM as the guard sometimes doesn't get to the back of the train in time to release the doors. In turn that could reduce financial penalties for late running. On Mid-Cheshire services it's very common for the guard not at the door controls by the time the train stops. (The Mid-Cheshire line being one where a lot of tickets can be sold by the guard.)

Thanks for this. I assume then that a driver would get an enhancement for taking on the additional responsibility whilst the role of the guard would be of a conductor, on less salary. Is the thinking then that they would be able to get more revenue in as the conductor would have as his/ her only role of collecting /checking fares? I am struggling to see what major savings could be made.

 

[talltim]

Which may or may not be true.......but going back to the prospectuses highlighted as the topic of this thread, a recurring theme through each of them is the requirement to operate with a reduced cost base and greater operating efficiencies.

But greater operating efficiencies and reduced cost base do not always = fewer employees, greater automation and centralisation of control.

 

[northwichcat]

I assume then that a driver would get an enhancement for taking on the additional responsibility whilst the role of the guard would be of a conductor, on less salary. Is the thinking then that they would be able to get more revenue in as the conductor would have as his/ her only role of collecting /checking fares?

I suppose those two reasons could be given as arguments of going over to DOO.

A slightly different one - the 16:58 Stockport-Chester service is sometimes cancelled due to no conductor available. Sometimes the unavailability of a conductor is not known about until after a driver has started the ECS move from Newton Heath to Stockport, so the unit has to do Newton Heath-Stockport-Chester not-in-service due to the unavailability of a conductor which will certainly cost Northern a bit.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I suppose those two reasons could be given as arguments of going over to DOO.

A slightly different one - the 16:58 Stockport-Chester service is sometimes cancelled due to no conductor available. Sometimes the unavailability of a conductor is not known about until after a driver has started the ECS move from Newton Heath to Stockport, so the unit has to do Newton Heath-Stockport-Chester not-in-service due to the unavailability of a conductor which will certainly cost Northern a bit.

And its been cancelled before to no driver, or to no unit available etc etc so what a load of crock

 

[northwichcat]

And its been cancelled before to no driver, or to no unit available etc etc so what a load of crock

How much diesel and track access charges are incurred when it's cancelled due to no driver?

When there's no guard but the Victoria driver has already taken out the unit from Newton Heath for Chester there could then be a later service cancelled due to no driver, when a driver is in Chester having worked a pointless ECS working.

The two most recent occasions when there's been no Victoria driver available the service has still run - a working to Buxton has been split at Stockport and a Piccadilly driver has taken the rear unit to Chester. Hence, the why there's a thread where someone asked what a Pacer was doing on the back of a Buxton service leaving Manchester.

 

[WatcherZero]

Thanks for this. I assume then that a driver would get an enhancement for taking on the additional responsibility whilst the role of the guard would be of a conductor, on less salary. Is the thinking then that they would be able to get more revenue in as the conductor would have as his/ her only role of collecting /checking fares? I am struggling to see what major savings could be made.

Yeah, lower salaried employee spending more time generating and protecting revenue. Far too often guards cant get down the full length of the train due to their other duties preventing them, particularly on crowded services when they cant leave the rear as they wouldnt be able to return to the rear before the next station. Its also cheaper as far less manpower required to have ticket checks onboard every service than having every station entry point manned round the clock by revenue protection staff.

 

[Moonshot]

Thanks for this. I assume then that a driver would get an enhancement for taking on the additional responsibility whilst the role of the guard would be of a conductor, on less salary. Is the thinking then that they would be able to get more revenue in as the conductor would have as his/ her only role of collecting /checking fares? I am struggling to see what major savings could be made.

That is pretty much how it should be......the safety aspect of the guards role is insignificant compared to the drivers. As Mr Collins points out , you often find guards delaying trains at stations whilst finishing off revenue duties. Having at least the driver open the doors is something that to be fair could be done now with very little investment. I ve no doubt this would save some delay minutes and reduce the frustration of passengers trying to get on and off trains

 

[ANorthernGuard]

That is pretty much how it should be......the safety aspect of the guards role is insignificant compared to the drivers. As Mr Collins points out , you often find guards delaying trains at stations whilst finishing off revenue duties. Having at least the driver open the doors is something that to be fair could be done now with very little investment. I ve no doubt this would save some delay minutes and reduce the frustration of passengers trying to get on and off trains

If we were delaying trains so often how come that the vast majority of trains are on time? Moonshot I seriously no doubt you are staff as no one in their right mind would belittle the thing that pays its bills. If people in your depot knew what you post (Thats if you are truly a conductor) you would be as popular as herpes in a harem.

 

[Moonshot]

If we were delaying trains so often how come that the vast majority of trains are on time? Moonshot I seriously no doubt you are staff as no one in their right mind would belittle the thing that pays its bills. If people in your depot knew what you post (Thats if you are truly a conductor) you would be as popular as herpes in a harem.

Ok I ll slightly rephrase that ... you sometimes find guards delaying trains at stations whilst finishing off revenue duties.....it happens.

 

[northwichcat]

If we were delaying trains so often how come that the vast majority of trains are on time?

Well the Mid-Cheshire line services were re-timed to take 3 minutes longer between Chester and Stockport not that longer ago due to trains struggling to run on time. Higher loading figures is part of the reason but not the only reason.

I'm not saying all guards are slow to get back and open the doors but some are. On one occasion, on an Airport-Piccadilly stopper I was on, the guard continued with ticket selling duties for 3 minutes after the train had arrived at Piccadilly. It was the guard who was taking out the next service who boarded the train and released the doors for the passengers!

What's important to remember is no-where does the consultation document say DOO is going to be implemented across the majority of the Northern network and it suggests DOO won't be considered for TPE. By the time extra services are going to be introduced and some guards will choose to leave regardless I doubt any Northern guard is going to be made redundant as a result of this.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Well the Mid-Cheshire line services were re-timed to take 3 minutes longer between Chester and Stockport not that longer ago due to trains struggling to run on time. Higher loading figures is part of the reason but not the only reason.

I'm not saying all guards are slow to get back and open the doors but some are. On one occasion, on an Airport-Piccadilly stopper I was on, the guard continued with ticket selling duties for 3 minutes after the train had arrived at Piccadilly. It was the guard who was taking out the next service who boarded the train and released the doors for the passengers!

What's important to remember is no-where does the consultation document say DOO is going to be implemented across the majority of the Northern network and it suggests DOO won't be considered for TPE. By the time extra services are going to be introduced and some guards will choose to leave regardless I doubt any Northern guard is going to be made redundant as a result of this.

Was that the return 09.14 service from Picc to MIA back to Picc by any chance

 

[Moonshot]

Well the Mid-Cheshire line services were re-timed to take 3 minutes longer between Chester and Stockport not that longer ago due to trains struggling to run on time. Higher loading figures is part of the reason but not the only reason.

I'm not saying all guards are slow to get back and open the doors but some are. On one occasion, on an Airport-Piccadilly stopper I was on, the guard continued with ticket selling duties for 3 minutes after the train had arrived at Piccadilly. It was the guard who was taking out the next service who boarded the train and released the doors for the passengers!

What's important to remember is no-where does the consultation document say DOO is going to be implemented across the majority of the Northern network and it suggests DOO won't be considered for TPE. By the time extra services are going to be introduced and some guards will choose to leave regardless I doubt any Northern guard is going to be made redundant as a result of this.

neither do I .....but in any event, we are fully aware of this proposal which isnt due till 2016 at the very earliest. A good number of guards become drivers - there appears to be some shortage of these right now, and if extra services are realised ( they ought to be considering the money being invested in the North West Network ) then that situation of lack of drivers will have ro be addressed.

 

[northwichcat]

Was that the return 09.14 service from Picc to MIA back to Picc by any chance

No it was an afternoon one, which did seem to have a lot of MMU students on but the guard only started doing a full ticket inspection at Slade Lane Junction.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

No it was an afternoon one.

There is one guard who is quite famous for delaying trains for the price of a ticket. Always works the same trains every day and a thorn in his colleagues (and managers) sides
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No it was an afternoon one, which did seem to have a lot of MMU students on but the guard only started doing a full ticket inspection at Slade Lane Junction.

One of the reasons a lot of us only do tickets after Slade lane (I do dependiing on the time of day) is because of the stations so close together. Any Guard worth his/her salt knows when to do tickets and when not to.

 

[hidden]

That is pretty much how it should be......the safety aspect of the guards role is insignificant compared to the drivers.

What a ridiculous statement.

 

[Moonshot]

What a ridiculous statement.

Why..?

 

[LowLevel]

Well, there is always the argument that the most likely time for the guard to have to go into full 'safety mode' and act is immediately after realising a colleague and quite possibly friend is traumatised, seriously injured or dead. Not an insignificant psychological feat. I like many of the drivers I work with and the thought of them being injured or killed is not a pleasant one but you can never say never.

I suppose it does basically boil down to yes, I do disagree with the authorities that it is a good idea to progress on all sorts of levels when there is a workable alternative, and that if it does push on and a tragedy occurs which could have mitigated by a guard being present, the individuals responsible end up in front of a judge - they are after all playing chance with lives. Maybe if all the passengers had burned at Ladbroke Grove on the 165 rather than being released by another member of staff by chance we'd be taking a different view.

I shall never forget that the rulebook is written in the blood of the thousands of passengers and railway workers past who have been failed by the railway and it's servants and that is why I will never consider it appropriate to allow cost considerations to dictate action on safety - I would like to know, genuinely, how many people have been killed throughout history by 'efficiency measures', whether obvious or otherwise.

Call that perspective what you will but I am a railwayman and it is more than just a job to me - it's my life. The idea that some bean counter can just look at that dedication on a piece of paper and chuck it away as something to cut back is repellent.

 

[muz379]

That is pretty much how it should be......the safety aspect of the guards role is insignificant compared to the drivers. As Mr Collins points out , you often find guards delaying trains at stations whilst finishing off revenue duties. Having at least the driver open the doors is something that to be fair could be done now with very little investment. I ve no doubt this would save some delay minutes and reduce the frustration of passengers trying to get on and off trains

so you cant prove the safety case so now you are going onto the performance case for DOO

The PPM figures for the likes of Northern ,ATW , and TPE are currently better than those for FCC or Southern

I would have thought with the frequent number of trains stood in the platform for minutes before the guard opens the doors the operators with a traditional two man operation and guard opening doors would have significantly lower PPM figures ... perhaps not

Well the Mid-Cheshire line services were re-timed to take 3 minutes longer between Chester and Stockport not that longer ago due to trains struggling to run on time. Higher loading figures is part of the reason but not the only reason.

I'm not saying all guards are slow to get back and open the doors but some are. On one occasion, on an Airport-Piccadilly stopper I was on, the guard continued with ticket selling duties for 3 minutes after the train had arrived at Piccadilly. It was the guard who was taking out the next service who boarded the train and released the doors for the passengers!

It does happen sometimes that someone will want a more complicated ticket than you envisaged , or they might get out a card to pay and the card reader wont want to play ball .more often than not I have been a bit delayed getting back to my panel because the advantix has decided to stop cooperating and I have had to mess with it to give the customer their ticket . or it might be busy so getting back through the train takes a little longer than you thought . Most the time if a customer wants a more complicated ticket and I am near a station I will tell them I will be back with them after the station , but we all make mistakes and sometimes dont get back to the panel in the time we would like too . Not going to pretend like it never happens but it isn't a frequent occurrence . Guards dont go out there setting out to make a train late , that just creates more work for us in handling customer complaints and notifying control to let them know what the delay is .

Lets look at another cause of delays at stations , sometimes loading and unloading of a disabled passenger can add a good 7 or 8 minutes delay onto a service with getting the disabled space clear , getting the ramp , setting the ramp up , getting them on and stowing the ramp safely again repeating the process at their destination . Should we stop carrying disabled passengers just because they cost delay minutes and it would be more efficient to leave them behind ? ofc we shouldn't

Sometimes the unit you will get given will make your service delayed 142 vs 150 means less doors which means increased time for passengers to alight and join the train

Anybody that observes passengers trying to get on a train will also know they will only half of the available doors .Currently I have observed many guards who will ask passengers to make use of all of the doors available whereas being confined to a cab would make this more difficult , so the advantages in lowered dwell times by having doors open as soon as the train is stationary would be undone by having passengers taking longer to load onto the train . Stuff like telling people to move down the train so everyone can get on would also not happen if the person watching the boarding of the train was confined to a cab


As for cancellations due to lack of traincrew - nearly all of the cancellations I am seeing at the moment (mainly leeds ,clitheroe and todmorden ) are due to lack of driver , Sometimes a service will be cancelled due to lack of conductor but the unit itself will still have to go somewhere to form a later service or to be out of the way .So the wasted costs in fuel and track access costs are a moot point if that train would have to be somewhere to form another service with another guard later in the day .Surely a cancellation due to lack of driver could actually end up costing a TOC more in cancellation fines because the unit cant be at its destination to form a later service leading to knock on cancellations .

neither do I .....but in any event, we are fully aware of this proposal which isnt due till 2016 at the very earliest. A good number of guards become drivers - there appears to be some shortage of these right now, and if extra services are realised ( they ought to be considering the money being invested in the North West Network ) then that situation of lack of drivers will have ro be addressed.

Northern will always suffer from a shortage of drivers because of the class of work that is handled as well as the attractions (be them perceived or real ) of working for other TOC's or the attraction of extra money going to a FOC .Other TOC's or FOC's will happilly take qualified drivers from northern as it saves them money . not helped by the fact that it takes so long for a driver to be fully productive .
Its not even a problem that could be solved by simply offering drivers more money
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, there is always the argument that the most likely time for the guard to have to go into full 'safety mode' and act is immediately after realising a colleague and quite possibly friend is traumatised, seriously injured or dead. Not an insignificant psychological feat.

A guard should be in full safety mode every time they are in charge of dispatching their train , that is where the most significant level of risk occurs to passengers on the railway as it is today .

 

[northwichcat]

Lets look at another cause of delays at stations , sometimes loading and unloading of a disabled passenger can add a good 7 or 8 minutes delay onto a service with getting the disabled space clear , getting the ramp , setting the ramp up , getting them on and stowing the ramp safely again repeating the process at their destination . Should we stop carrying disabled passengers just because they cost delay minutes and it would be more efficient to leave them behind ? ofc we shouldn't

Well refusing to carry a disabled passenger because it takes too long to load them on to the train would be illegal under the equalities act, allowing the driver to release the door annoys a trade union.

Anybody that observes passengers trying to get on a train will also know they will only half of the available doors .Currently I have observed many guards who will ask passengers to make use of all of the doors available whereas being confined to a cab would make this more difficult

What would help here is if the door formations were consistent and the passengers knew the length of train before it arrived and whether all carriages will be in service. A short formed train may have everyone trying to board the rear door because they were waiting where the rear train would have stopped, had there been one. While if there is an empty rear train the passengers don't know whether they are allowed to board it or not.

Sometimes a service will be cancelled due to lack of conductor but the unit itself will still have to go somewhere to form a later service or to be out of the way .So the wasted costs in fuel and track access costs are a moot point if that train would have to be somewhere to form another service with another guard later in the day .Surely a cancellation due to lack of driver could actually end up costing a TOC more in cancellation fines because the unit cant be at its destination to form a later service leading to knock on cancellations .

Well that only applies on certain routes. If a Manchester-Chester/Marple/Hazel Grove/Sheffield/Huddersfield/Clitheroe etc. service is cancelled then the return working is also cancelled because there's no crew base signing the route at the other end.

 

[LowLevel]

A guard should be in full safety mode every time they are in charge of dispatching their train , that is where the most significant level of risk occurs to passengers on the railway as it is today .

I am mostly referring to stopping the job, laying protection, getting emergency services and dealing with an emergency rather than the day to day operational safety activities which while very important are generally conducted in a significantly less stressful environment.