Great Western Coffee Shop

Can anyone on here explain a few things to me about the requirements for DOO? It's interested me for a while because (a) I am a guard, albeit on a minor railway, and (b) as everyone knows, the guard is the most important person on a train  8).

I have seen lots of different ways of despatching DOO trains on my travels. At Oxford trains are despatched by platform staff using 'CD' (close doors) and 'RA' (rightaway) buttons that light the appropriate indicators on the platform starter signal. At Reading platform staff despatch using the bat or a white light for CD, then a green flag/Bardic for RA. All fair enough, this I can understand.

What puzzles me is the requirements for stations where the driver "despatches" the train him/herself, especially at Didcot: London-bound trains through platform 4 have banks of CCTV cameras/monitors, and platform 5 has mirrors (as also seen at lots of other stations e.g. Radley, Appleford, Culham). BUT, platform 3 has nothing, and the driver of an Oxford-bound has to look out of the window back along the train to check that it is safe to depart. How does this situation arise? Platforms 3 and 4 are both dead straight, so there is no issue with visibility along the train that causes this difference. If platform 4 needs banks of CCTV monitors why does platform 3 have no DOO equipment at all when both are equally busy with DOO trains?  ???

For there to be no mirrors or CCTV provided at DOO stations the driver has to have a clear view down the platform. To use your example at Didcot Parkway although virtually straight platforms there is a slight curve on both platforms at the Bristol end. It's enough to mean that a driver looking out of his cab on platform 4 can't clearly see the doors of their train after more than two coaches back when driving a three carriage train. At platform 3 in the opposite direction this slight curve aids the drivers view.

There are a couple of examples where mirrors/CCTV are provided where the driver can still see clearly down the length of their train by looking out of the cab, but there are no examples where nothing is provided when it should be.

Thanks for that, it's been bugging me for ages. I must admit I never noticed the curve on platforms 3 and 4.

I don't understand DOO.  Either it is perfectly safe for the driver to be the only person responsible for train safety in which case it could be introduced more widely to both save money and let the guard sell and check tickets (I know it involves investment in extra equipment - but on busy routes the costs must be low relative to staffing costs)   OR  it is dangerous in which case why is it used anywhere.

I know that this post risks inflaming the feeling of the Guards posting on this forum (and I don't have any axe to grind in either direction and I understand perfectly why people in a safety critical role do not want to be downgraded to "glorified kit kat sellers" and also the practical problems of extending DOO - union agreements etc) But, putting emotions and self interests aside for a moment and thinking purely hypothetically is there any evidence that DOO trains are any more or less safe than trains with Guards? 

How many accidents have been averted by having a guard on board?  How many accidents have been contributed to by confusion over splitting the responsibility for train safety between two people who may not always communicate effectively?

If you were inventing the railways from scratch would it really make sense to make one person responsible for closing the doors and a different person responsible for checking the doors are closed before pulling away. or does having two peopel check that things are done make it safer?

As a passenger I am reasured that there is more than one person with some safety training on board (for example the ability to "protect" and evacuate a train) afterall the driver could be hurt or attacked or just die sudenly, but I don't know why a ticket inspector or bufet host couldn't have this training instead or needing a guard.

Whilst given my previous postings I guess you'd hardly expect me to be in favour of diluting the guard's role, I have always been of the opinion that DOO is operating trains "on the cheap" and inherently less safe that driver/guard operation.

Firstly a bit of history: go back 40 years or so the role of the guard was virtually entirely operational. Their customer-facing duties were confined largely to providing information to passengers on request, and in fact in many cases guards were expressly forbidden to examine tickets, with this being the domain of ticket examiners and travelling ticket inspectors. Operationally the guard was in overall charge of the train and responsible for despatch, timekeeping, safety, looking after mail and parcels, etc etc. One of (if not the most important duties of the guard was to "protect" his train if it was disabled for some reason (for instance, a train failure or extended signal check) by walking a set distance in rear with a red flag/lamp and laying detonators (explosive charges that are clipped to the rail and make an almighty bang when struck by a wheel; as soon as a driver hears one of these he knows he needs to stop sharpish) to guard against the possibility of an errant driver of a following service running by signals at danger and causing a rear-end collision.

Gradually the guard was also given responsibility for ticket inspection and collection, initially on lightly-used branchlines using DMUs as Paytrains when stations were de-staffed. Initially titled "conductor guards", over the course of time this has contracted simply conductor (incidentally, I would argue that from a purely semantic point of view there are very few "guards" on passenger trains these days: they are almost invariably conductors as they have both operating and revenue responsibilities). For simplicity's sake the rulebook still refers to guards as guards, and does not mess around with the various different TOC names for them!

Although to the untrained eye the guard's job may well seem mundane (the routine aspects revolving around safety, train despatch and ticket examination), they have a vast amount of knowledge and are really essential as soon as things start going awry, particularly in an emergency situation.  Remember that a guard has mechanical knowledge of his train and also detailed knowledge of the route over which it travels. In any sort of accident because the driver is right at the front of the train s/he is vulnerable and often incapacitated: the implications for a DOO train being involved in a collision are obvious, with large numbers of passengers potentially being left without any staff assistance. In this situation the presence of a guard could, in my humble opinion, be lifesaving.

Here's another thing: as I see it despatching a driver-only train is also less safe than despatching by a guard. Watch the guard on an HST or unit. You will see that they always keep a sharp lookout until their whole train has cleared the platform, in case anything goes amiss (some clown trying to board or alight, for example). On a DOO train, as soon as the driver's cab has cleared the monitors/mirrors, the driver is looking at the line ahead, not back along his train, and will not be able to respond to such a situation. A couple of years ago at Huntingdon a man was trapped by his coat, dragged by a departing DOO train and seriously injured when he fell between the train and platform. The train was eventually stopped by a passcom activation. I think it's a safe bet that the presence of a guard keeping a sharp lookout would have prevented this accident entirely.

Sorry, I've rambled on way too much here. I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: guards have a vast amount of operational training that ticket examiners and buffet stewards do not. You can't give a ticket examiner or buffet steward a bit of additional training: what you need is a fully qualified guard!

By the way, if you're still reading, thanks!

I am afraid the operational role of the guard no longer exists.  It cannot otherwise you could not have DOO.  Either you need a guard or you dont there is no half measures.  As DOO is legal and has been accepted by the unions it will only be a matter of time before they disappear altogether. 

Thanks for your very detailed 'case' for the retention of 'conductors', inspector_blakey!  ;D

Writing as a commuter passenger here - I agree with you entirely.  I'm happy that, on a two or three carriage train, containing a fair few people between Nailsea and Bristol, there are (at least) two staff who can deal with anything untoward that might arise.  The fact that the train is too crammed (particularly the 1754 from BTM to Nailsea) for the conductor to ever carry out a ticket inspection is neither here nor there.  ::)

Unlikely Super TM as any new installations will not gain approval from whichever safety authority currently rules on these matters. Existing arrangements effectively are grandfathered. Which as Tim says is a bit curious. Either it's safe or it's not.

There was another incident on the GN a few years back when a toddler was left on the platform when its mother went back in to get the pram and second child. Before she could get the pram off, doors closed and off the train went, leaving a 2 year old on an empty platform at an unstaffed station (Sandy). I doubt whether that would have happened with an alert guard watching. Thankfully the toddler was safe, IIRC the emergency handle was pulled and the train had to reverse back, which took quite a time for obvious reasons.        

In some ways it would be better to have more ticket barriers and ticket inspectors (RPIs), which would allow the guard to carry out other duties.

I am for guards, except maybe on shorter commuter journeys, where cameras can be used.

I certainly don't think HSS should become DOO.

One case study is the Chiltern line. Btw London and Bicester, there is rarely a guard on board (esp on fast trains, as any fare dodgers would have the Marylebone barriers to get past). At Bicester, the guard gets on.

And I do wish TOCs would abandon Train Manager - it is the WRONG title.

I am afraid this is not true.  This is a rumour which has come from somewhere.  I believe that the new line incorporating the old East London underground line and the new javelin service will both be DOO. 

Unless you can show me somewhere this is officially noted.

Sorry to reply to my own post but see this link

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1126

nothing to suggest that no new DOO will be allowed

Inspector Blakey and STM have covered the role of the guard and much of the background to this 'vexed question' in their posts, so not a lot for me to add.  I must say tho' that the drivers I have talked toabout this issue appreciate having someone 'on the back'.  Their job is complicated enough without having the added responsibility of doors to oversee.  Of course, given  the age of FGW rolling stock, I wouldn't rule out the return of the fireman. ;D

SNCF seem to manage DOO at least on the Transilien or Paris suburban services.  That's achieved by having a bank of 4 CCTV screens at the end of each platform to enable the driver to see whether he's about to crush anybody.  There's no-one on the platform to give the "right away".  He just sods off when he wants.

There you can buy as many tickets as you like and you use them by putting them through the machine which stamps them to "validate" them.  Here (http://www.transilien.com/web/site/accueil/guide-du-voyageur/billets-tarifs/regles-acces-usage/lang/en) are the rules.

What's this got to do with FGW etc?  Nothing except that personal security doesn't seem to be such an issue in France.  Hmm.

I'm in favour of DOO on all units. They are obviously required on HST's due to slam doors, but I don't see the point on even 180's or Voyagers. The amount of revenue lost on stoppers because the Guard has to check the doors close must be huge! Not all of them even bother checking tickets - from experience in the West Midlands many just stay in the back cab all the time and read The Sun/Star! Although the incidents described above are unfortunate, they are extremely rare and I don't think justify the vast cost of providing a guard on every train.  Turbos work really well with no guard and extremely safely - what would they do between Reading and London where most stations have ticket barriers?

More accidents could be prevented by investing the money saved on guards wages by imporving services or reopening lines and getting people of the roads - one of the biggest killers in the UK

The main problem with the rail industry in this country I think is that the unions are so unbelievably resistant to change - in the past this has led to increased costs and ultimately the abolishment of services and jobs!

I like the compromise SN use on their Electrostars on longer distance services. The driver opens the doors (I believe with automatic SDO), avoiding the long delay typical on SWT where the guard does it. Then the guard deals with closing up and gives the right away. Train spends less time stationary, guard keeps his job.

Paul

I don't think your argument holds in the light of what has been said above: guards are not simply ticket examiners and have much wider safety responsibilities. If anything what you have written reads to me like a case for the greater provision of ticket examiners rather than the abolition of guards. In fairness to rail staff though, there may be a good reason they hang around the back cabs. Some of the second-generation BR units were, in a moment of genius, designed with guard's door controls in the cabs only (I think I'm right in saying that the intermediate door controls on the 150/2 fleet were only provided during a relatively recent refurbishment). This means that a guard working one of these units on a stopper has to high-tail it back to the rear cab every time a station is reached which is not conducive to ticket examination!

Trust me, you don't want that to happen. They're trouble  ;) :-X

No they dont. If they did then DOO could not exist.  Freight trains dont have guards.


Thats because they were designed for DOO.  The reason DOO has not really extended in the last 15 years is because of privatisation.  The short length of franchises mean it has not been cost effective for the franchise holder to bring in DOO as the return on the investment will not be enough in the short time until the franchise ends.

:o >:(


Is there a DIY Fatwah facility on this site?

Thanks for all the interesting replies.  

I do think that the issue of checking tickets clouds the discussion.  If Guards are unable to do proper ticket checks (because they are busy with more important jobs raher than laziness) then that would seem to be an argument for introducing ticket inspectors  on the train or at the stations or using penalty fares or whatever to discourage ticketless travel not for downgrading the safety role of the Guard.  

International comparisons are not always applicable.  The Munich S-Bahn has DOO and mostly unstaffed stations with ticket machines.  But, then there are fewer yobs in Munich so personal security is less of an issue, most of the platforms are straight, the doors close automatically with sensors, many of the lines are S-Bahn dedicated and tickets are so cheap that revenue protection isn't such a big issue (many of the locals have an annual season paid for by direct debit - not much point in checking then everyday) the tickets are simple so buying from a machine (or a cafe with a simple machine a minimal training) works .  On the otherhand perhaps the service is only good and faresdirt cheap because it is run efficiently without the fuss of blowing whisles, pressing buzzers, automatic barriers  etc.

i'm glad there are Guards on the trains, the comprimise of letting the driver open the doors does seem sensible though.  The train will be stationary when this happends so you can't argue that the driver has other jobs to do.  Anything that reduces the station dwell time if only by half a second will feed into the preformance statistics.

The problem with safety issues like this is that everyone thinks that their train ought to be as safe as absolutely possible (and you probably need gaurds to ensure this).  However because risks are very low on any train(compared with road transport for example) it doesn't follow that DOO is unsafe.  In fact if you abolished guards (and TPWS, ATP, door locking, the RAIIB etc and other expensive safety measures) and used the money saved to lower fares and encourage people out of their much more dangerous cars I would bet that you would save a large number of lives overall.  If we were all perfectly rational beings who valued each life equally that is what would happen.  In the realworld most of use would agree that such actions would be wrong although I am not sure why.

[/quote]
No they dont. If they did then DOO could not exist.  Freight trains dont have guards.





[/quote]
Freight trains also dont have passengers to help in the event of an incident. This is part of a guards duties as you know. Evacuation for example.

Why couldn't a ticket inspector be trained in evacuation?? 

I'm in favour of having a member of staff on trains to do tickets, improve security and help passengers, but on modern units there appears to be no need for them to open and close the doors. We should remove this slightly ridiculous tiltle on DMU's which I don't think imporoves safety and gives jobsworths the safety argument as an excuse to sit around and do basically nothing. After rereading the incidents described earlier you can argue that in both cases the driver was at fault and should have been paying more attention to the closing doors.

With improved signalling and radio communications on most lines the need for Guards to protect trains in the event of a breakdown is more or less negated now. Plus now with TPWS and more safety regulations than ever the risk of an accident is now less than at any other time in British rail history. Sorry Guards, your time is almost up.

Its fair enough to expect the driver to watch the doors close.  But once they are closed and the train starts moving it has to be eyes forward

If you get your coat or rucksack strap caught in the doors that is very difficult for anyone to see until the train starts moving so having someone watching the train as it pulls out is an aid to safety.  (you can argue over whether that should be the guard or someone on the platform - who argueably has an even better view) with an emergency stop button or if you ant super-safett Both)

But there are usually a few seconds between the doors closing and the train moving off - the driver should use this time to check people are clear of the doors.

Are you suggesting he should only pull out when everyone is behind the yellow line (I can't see that working at busy platforms) ?
the problem with some incidents of getting clothes and bags caught in the door is that no-one notices (including the person who is trapped) or could reasonably be expected to notice (the door might be a very long way from either the driver or the guard's position) until the train starts moving.  Its not so much that having someone watch the train after it has started moving allows trapped clothing/bags to be noticed it is that it allows distress/screaming/shouting/running alongsidethetraininacomedymanner trapped passengers to be noticed and the train stopped before it reaches a lethal speed. 

People are sensible and move away from the doors when alighting so it should be possible to see if somebody is stuck. Anyway there would still be platform staff at busy stations such as Paddington, Slough, Reading, Oxford and Newbury to check.

I am not sure that platform staff can stop the train as quickly as a guard can (not without tube-style emergency stop buttons).  Platform staff can and should also check the train pulls out safely (and they usually do) but I suspect that if they saw something amis the first thing they would do would be to yell to the guard.

When I joined FGW just under 3 years ago in a clerical role even I did a train evacuation course, which was done at St Philips Marsh.

If I remember correctly all staff do it.

Absolutely right: on most current stock the guard can being an immediate halt to proceedings by signalling "one" on the buzzer to the driver, telling him to stop immediately. On older vehicles (e.g. mark II stock) the guard has an emergency brake "setter" and can physically stop the train himself. I don't know how effective the passcom apparatus on DOO stock is in this situation: it does not cause a brake application as on older stock, but simply sounds an alarm in the driver's cab and opens an intercom channel. I don't know if procedure dictates that a driver should stop immediately on receiving a passcom activation when he's leaving a station.


It's a long time since I read the RAIB report into the Huntingdon accident, so I may have remembered this incorrectly. However, I think that the driver checked the monitors before he applied power and thought that the person who was trapped was just standing rather close to the train. Interestingly I don't remember that report containing any mention of the relative merits or demerits of DOO versus driver/guard operation.

How is the guard able to see any better than a driver that someone is trapped.  There is no requirement for the guard to keep a look out on trains with power doors. The guard can be positioned anywhere on the train and the requirement to stay at the panel until it left the platform was removed a couple of years ago.  once the train starts moving it is already too late even if the train stops within a few seconds.  That is still more than enough time to fall time and be crushed by the train. It is far more important to make sure that nobody is trapped before the signal to move is given and I dont see why having a guard on board is any better than DOO.

Because guards tend to keep their head out of the window/ door when the train is leaving.

Even newer units like 170s have openable guards' windows.

If someone is trapped the train can be stopped quickly. Drivers have to look forward when driving and would not notice until a passenger pulls the communication chord.

Voyagers and 180's don't have openable guards' windows

Good point! ;D

Intrigued by your comments, inspector_blakey, I did a bit of digging, at http://www.raib.gov.uk/latest_news/news_archive/news_archives_2007/070430_pn_huntingdon.cfm

Drivers should be driving trains  looking Forward not worrying about looking back at things happening behind.The Drivers atttention should be at all times on the road ahead.
Guards are essential to the safe operation of the train they are highly trained staff who have to undertake a variety of roles sometimes all at the same time.
Was on a train recently where 2 females were sexually assaulted by a male the guard was on the ball and the train was stopped at a station but the doors were not released untill the police arrived whilst the driver liased with the signal man about the situation,.....ohhh for DOO is this situation.

They could, and then they'd be called a guard, or conductor, or Train manager........ ;)

This may be true, but I doubt you were trained in PTS, protection, emergency evacuation etc, as you are not in a 'safety critical' role. At the end of the day a guard is needed on board all trains, purely for the reasons stated above by dog box.

Thanks for backing me up, dog box and gaf71!  :)

And for elegantly making in a few sentences points that I failed to get across in my extensive ramblings on the subject!  :-[

Oh dear, DOO again!

Let's first concentrate on the travelling public, after all the reason the service actually runs. It would be an incredibly naive person to think that the cost saving of getting rid of guards is going to trickle down to the fare paying passenger, either by way of fare cuts, extra services, or better facilities.

What DOO does however lead to is a complete decrease in any sort of passenger care. Ever been on a DOO train? You might get the odd announcemnt at major terminals from the driver, but he's too busy concentrating on driving the train to do anything else. What if the train breaks down or there are problems? Well the driver is going to be too busy dealing with the signaller or sorting out the train, to do much other than make the occasional announcements. And he certainly won't have access to journey information, knowledge of tickets or anything like that.

What if there is trouble on the train? Well the driver is busy driving it isn't he? So in all likelyhood he's not going to know what's going on. Drivers who drive DOO may have more information on this, but it is my understanding that certainly there are agreements with ASLEF about not leaving the cab. There are strict rules about the guard contacting the driver when a train is in motion these days, let alone a member of the public. If the driver hears someone screaming banging on his cab door, he is likely to ignore it, as it is a distraction, and besides all the drunks and smackheads do it quite regularly. All he can do is advise the signaller the police / ambulance or whatnot is required. At least a guard has the ability to move passengers, perform basic first aid, or attempt to find competent medics. The driver is in the cab, driving, trying to get the train to the destination where the emergency services can attend.

What about the worst case. Derailments and suchlike? If the driver is killed, who deals with things? On the turbo in the Paddington crash, it is worth noting that a driver and a trainee driver were riding in the back cab and were able to co-ordinate evacuations. It is not usual practice for anyone to be in there, other than someone with a cab pass travelling on duty around, or a guard route learning. As for the other major DOO crash at Potters Bar, it was only the rear vehicle that came off, so the driver wasn't harmed. But then that's just down to luck. If the only person trained in safety is dead, alright the computer systems these days SHOULD knock signals to red, and protect the line as such, but that doesn't help if a train is already in the section, nor does it help bewildered passengers having to dodge live power lines (residual current), debris on the tracks and whatnot.

Now let's look at staff issues.

With two members of staff, there is a guaruntee of someone to back you up no matter what the incident is. Certain faults or incidents on train would require the guard to ride in the front and act as a 'secondman'. If there is no guard, then the driver has to hope that there is another driver / fitter or guard riding passenger in the train, otherwise it's out of service. Minor incidents can be resolved more quickly with a guard onboard, i.e. door problems, circuit breakers tripping in the rear cab.

What about unruly passengers? Two members of staff are better than one, and a lot of drivers will help guards throw off miscreants.

Finally what if the driver has a fatality or has a brick thrown through his window. Many drivers in that situation will not be in a state to deal with passengers, where as the guard can get on with that part of the job, or assist the driver as he is competent to do so.

So there you have it. DOO is a cost cutting exercise, much along the lines of closing post offices. It doesn't benefit the staff, and certainly doesn't benefit the public.

Incidentally regards freight trains, certain freight trains DO operate with a guard. Companies like DRS, First GBRF do employ forms of Trainmen, who amongst other duties do ride on the locomotive. And I dare say that with a guard on them, freight train faliures might just be cleared quicker, rather than getting the driver alone to walk the length of the thing up and back all the time, when problems occur!

Oh and I forgot to put why training a steward or ticket collector in full evacuation is not suitable, (no disrespect to these grades intended mind you, they are important members of the railway family).

As part of the training for guards, route knowledge is key. It is no good putting someone in charge of evacuation if they don't know the route, i.e. line speeds, potential hazards, electrification working and whatnot, as they could potentially lead passengers into more harm.

If you then go down the route of saying "well we can get these grades to learn the route and PTS", then you're going to have to pay them extra to cover these new responsiblities and duties, and any saving made will be pointless, and they will more or less become a trainman by default.

With regards internal training on evacuation for clerical employees, I think you will find that they are only permitted to perform tasks related to evacuation under the authority and direction of the driver, guard or a suitably qualified manager. They can't just go ahead and do it, and would be in breach of the railway rulebook and their contract of employment if they did.

There's a man who's never seen the amount of d*ckheads try and put doors on catches or jump through HST windows at Reading. For every 100 sensible people, there's always one idiot, and that's a lot of idiots when it all adds up!

Not strictly FGW related but LU have been using DOO for quite a long time, They have CCTV screens at the end of the platform that the driver uses to check that no one is in the doorway. You get the odd RPI who tries to make things slightly awkward for you when you can't find your ticket... ::)

This is all very well but does not change the fact that a guard is no longer required and DOO has been accepted as safe.

What about great heck accident both the driver and guard were killed.  Should we have a third member of staff on board?  Or a fourth or fifth.

The guard does not do anything that a driver could do on a DOO train.  With HST a guard is currently needed for the doors but apart from that they are not required.

Yes it may be nice to have another person on board but the fact that DOO is allowed to exist means that the guard is not needed.  Many routes will need someone on board to sell tickets and serve tea coffee etc but the rule book requirement for a guard was removed many years ago.  Drivers took a big pay rise as a result.

Well said super TM - drivers are very well paid with excellent conditions and the long suffering passengers shouldn't be expected to also fund high rates for guards where they are no longer required. Technology, and as a result safety, has improved so much in recent years that accidents and are very rare negating the need for an expensive back up man.

Sorry but i totally disagree with you autotank you certainly are not in a position to appreciate the working of the railway, just look at what the guard did during the ufton nervet incident, the actions of this individual saved many lives ,and as he is know personally to me i think your opinions are an insult to his professionalism

West guards get out onto the platform at every station, close doors when safe and then have to stay by the panel until the train has left the platform.  As such, unless we are working on a 150/1, it is impossible to have a head out of the window.  However, on arrival at a station, local door is opened first, guard leans out and checks that train is platformed correctly and then doors are released.



Why so bitter? Have you perhaps been passed over for a guard's job autotank? ;D


(Edit) Dog Box posted whilst I was typing this and I have just seen his contribution.  Bravo!

I can't say i've seen much evidence of that occuring!

LM don't do that on their 150s.

What's the point? If the guard is at the rear of the train, they know the rear is platformed (the driver will obviously be platformed at the front).

Unfortunately, FTPE do do this. It can mean that the best part of half a minute can be spent dwelling before doors are released (guard fighting his/her way to the rear, opening local door, getting out to "check", getting back in and releasing all doors)!

Presumably the 'long suffering passenger' would like to see a decrease in fares, with the money saved by the removal of guards?

Gatwick Express went D.O.O. once the 73s and coaching stock were removed. I didn't see them cutting the cost of tickets, after laying off all their Senior Conductors.

C2C also went D.O.O. Again no decrease in fares with the wage savings.

Therefore please do tell in what way D.O.O. benefits the passenger, if it is not in fare decreases?

The passengers will be suffering more if guards are done away with. Last night a good friend of mine had what sounds like a pretty frightening experience on an FGW DOO service: a group of drunk yobs was tearing up the interior of the unit and behaving threateningly. He said that he was so sure they were about to turn on him that he abandoned ship a stop early and called the police on his mobile.

Now, I would never expect a guard to wade in and try and stop a group of drunks destroying a train (staff safety is obviously important too), but I'll wager the driver took that train all the way to its destination oblivious to the chaos behind him. A guard could have liaised with control or a signaller to arrange police assistance to actually deal with the situation and apprehend the miscreants before anyone got attacked or assaulted.

Sounds really nasty and my sympathies are with the driver - it can't have been pleasant to be in a situation like that.

However incidents like this should be tackled by increased security on late night services (I believe Borris has just funded more BTP Officers in London which is good news). Security personel could deal with these incidents more effectively than a guard and also wouldn't have to open the doors every 5 minutes!

BTW I haven't been turned down for a Guards job (I've never applied for a job on the railway) and I do have a very good understanding of railway operations - I'm a driver on a heritage railway.

Not wanting to to be rude mate ..but  experience gained within a heritage railway environment is poles apart from working on the national rail network especially in a safety critical position { and before any one asks i do both}

As a passenger, guards are able to give me journey information, are able to answer queries regarding the train, can sell tickets and provide increased re-assurance at night.

On the other hand, the off chance that a security bloke will be on board. If I wanted an unusual combination of tickets I can't buy this from a ticket machine and so will end up paying more.

They are poles apart - I don't get paid and I actually enjoy my duties ;D

Before you get stuck in - I have worked very hard in my own time for around 10 years to get passed out. We work to a lot of the rules you do on the 'big' railway - after all we are carrying members of the public on timetabled services.

And what happens with greasy/slippery rails?  There is no guarantee of a train being platformed correctly 100% of the time, no matter how skilful the driver. 

Both driver and guard were killed, but one of the freight drivers survived. And should we have a third member of staff on board, well perhaps if all railway staff of all grades were taught how to contact the signaller from a trackside phone, and recognise mileposts or overhead line structures, in order to at least give some identification as to where they are, I can't see that being a bad thing.

Indeed by that logic, you may as well have completely automated trains with no drivers, after all the driver may get killed, then what? The Docklands light railway has been proven to be safe...

As for guards doing nothing but doors on HST's, I'd hate to think what would happen if this really was the case, having to wait for the driver to reset passcoms, fix door faults, stop the train to answer the call for aid and whatnot...

But my point is that the driver can SEE if the front of the train is platformed.

And the guard can SEE if the rear is platformed.

So there is no need for the guard to extend dwells by looking out first.

Assuming the guard is opening the doors from the rear...

Just a couple of observations from me, if I may - purely as a commuter passenger, not as a member of staff (current or past)!


Sorry, autotank, but I disagree: I'm often dismayed at how close some people stand to trains as they arrive or depart: quite often, passengers intending to board cram up so close that alighting passengers have to elbow them out of the way as they step down on to the platform!  And even passengers for a following sevice remain standing there on the platform edge, waiting for that following service, just to be 'front of the queue'!   ::)


To be fair, I do see this happening every morning at Nailsea and the intermediate stations on my commute into Bristol - and I'm impressed with the guard's professionalism.  (I'm sure it happens on the evening return journey, too - but those trains are too crammed for me observe what's happening on the platform!)

And finally - in the case of an incident affecting one end of the train or the other, the staff remote from the incident would be able to deal with it, whatever the fate of the staff at the other end.  I think the Great Heck incident is very unusual in that both staff were killed: as is more likely, in such tragic cases as Ufton Nervet, there would be at least one surviving member of staff to deal with the aftermath.

No they do not.  That requirement was removed from the rule book about 3 years ago.  That was to bring it in line with DOO where the driver is not required / able to keep a look out after the train has left the platform

Certain companies have local instructions which still apply the old rule, of which Great Western and I think Northern are two specific examples, where as London Midland do not. In much the same way that on HST's Great Western guards generally have to dispatch from the back, where as on Cross Country they dispatch from more or less wherever they want, and West Coast dispatched from the DVT a lot of the time, even if it was the leading vehicle.

I sure he did a great job but I dont think you can claim he saved lives.  There was an off duty police man on site who called the emergency services first. Train were stopped by the activation of track circuits.  In the report it says only that he put Track Circuit clips on the down line not the up line.  

I dont think anybody here has a particular axe to grind.  I am just pointing out that DOO is approved for use in this country, has done so for a number of years, both trade unions agreed to it.  I there really any need these days to have a guard on a midday midwinter St Erth to St ives train.  How is it any diifferent from a bus where conductors were removed years ago.

Yes I know it is an emotional subject and the RMT rightly will try and press to keep as many guards on for as long as possible but as time goes on and new trains are bought into use then DOO will increase.  Just look at the javelin trains they will be DOO.  There was going to be a strike last year but AIUI that will not happen but DOO will.

Welcome to the Coffee Shop forum, Commander Marsters - and thanks for your thought-provoking comments!

Conductors are coming back on buses.

And how are fares to be collected on the St Ives line with no guard?

By the driver

How long do you want the journey to take? The driver would need to secure the train first before moving to the vestibule area to fidget with change and get the Advantix to spit out tickets at the rate of one per week. Total no brainer idea which wont happen.
 ::)

Having stirred up this whole hornet's nest I'm going to bow out at this point: I think everything that I was going to say has been said. It will be apparent to those of you that have read my postings above that I am absolutely in favour of the retention of guards in a safety-critical capacity rather than their replacement by ticket examiners or knuckle-dragging bouncers. I remain firmly of the opinion that DOO is less safe than driver/guard working. I'm not sure I would go as far at to say that DOO is actually unsafe, but there is no doubt in my mind that driver/guard working is safer.

I'll leave a couple of quotations from the late Gerry Fiennes, who in his time was general manager of both BR(ER) and BR(WR) and considered by many as a railwayman par excellence.


and

I am assuming you are not serious!

St Ives branch has 5 stops & is only 3 miles long, for 6 months has 4 cars - on a busy day in winter the conductor can have trouble collecting fares from a single 153 when someone wants to go to Strood and another wants a Plusbus to Redruth. (doesn't exist)

St Ives is also a rigid 1/2 hour return which just about allows the driver time to call the St Erth signaller before going back.

Happens in summer, I went to get the branch but (like others) I couldn't get through the outflowing horde before the conductor had closed the doors & 2x2.

There's a ticket machine at St Ives but it only produces ranger tickets at ^4, there's a travel agent that sells rail tickets - their staff are excellent and they can sell you any ticket you want  BUT their primary business is not rail tickets - you wait till they have sold a holiday package.



   

Now you are being ridiculous!

Last time I looked, this was in my Rule Book, so thats why I do it!

Time to update your rule book then.

OK maybe a bit OTT.  But in the future we will probably all have ticket smart cards and station validators.  Penalty fare will be set at about ^100 to encourage people to validate before starting journey so requirements to sell tickets will be greatly reduced.

the TOC's have agreed to accept tickets issued on mobile phone and technololgy is advancing all the time.  Who knows maybe it will all go GOO like on the docklands.

Reduced costs which helps marginal services keep running.

Less chance of cancellation due to no show of guard.

On board staff can give passengers 100% of their attention instead of having to close the doors every few minutes which can be easily and safely carried out by the driver.

If DOO was to come in, then it would be the marginal services first for the chop! Who's going to spend money on CSR / mirrors / full track circuiting and all the other equipment to run a limited service 1 car train? Cheaper to employ a guard on that, unless you dilute the requirements for DOO, which definitely would impede safety. Or alternatively run a bus...

What onboard staff? Very few DOO trains always have onboard staff. Usually you get the odd ticket collector or RPI on for part of the journey on maybe between 1 in 5 and 1 in 10 journeys if that?

The cancellation argument is poor anyway, and is generally due to either poor rostering, man management, decreases in the number of relief crews or serious delays. And drivers can be just as affected by this. By that logic we may as well make everything automated, so drivers aren't needed, in case they are a no show and the service is cancelled!

I can't dispute your point ref the rule book, (and obviously, from your comments, working practice is different on the high speed side).  However, West guards work to the above standard, (as imposed by competence management).  It must be a local instruction, but all training and assessment rides are based on this practice and a guard would fail, were he/she not to follow suite.

It is a local instruction, and applies to 180's as well. As for HST's and coaching stock the guard has to have his head out of the window and remain by the door control (or a position where he can apply the emergency brake) until the last vehicle has left the platform.

Its up to date, I actually clarified this with a competency manager on my last assesment ride, and was assured it is still part of our rules.

I'm talking about marginal weekend and late night/early morning services. I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting DOO on the Far North Line yet but it definately makes sense on most track circuited FGW routes. Mirrows shouldn't be that expensive (but I bet they are because they are to do with the railway!)

Just because I'm a fan of DOO doesn't mean I don't think most medium/long distance trains shouldn't have a member of staff on board. By making trains DOO the customer experience can be improved!

There is always the risk of a humans not showing. By reducing the requirement of people to run a service in half it will definately reduce the instances of cancellation due to no shows.

As for marginal late night services or whatnot, DOO trains run more or less 24 hours between London and Reading. DOO trains could easily also do this to Oxford or Bedwyn, but don't, presumably as the company rightly or wrongly believes there is no business case for it.
Indeed one of the companies than run more or less 24 hours a day is Transpennine Express, which does have guards.

But on these long haul intercity trips, the guards aren't opening / closing doors every few minutes are they. And besides once the companies realise they only need one person on board, they can start getting rid of other onboard staff, and have just the driver and no one else on board.

Take the Kings Lynn line as an example. This used to be intercity loco and coaches. It is now basically an outer surburban service, where maybe a few RPO's jump on now and then. DOO has hardly improved that!

Cross Country services have cut back on catering considerably, so now there is generally no catering beyond 8pm. Now imagine they didn't have to have guards either. Are they really going to bother having a roving ticket collector on these trains? It would not be unrealistic to suggest that you could find yourself travelling on Birmingham to Bournemouth, or Bristol to Leeds, with no other staff, other than a driver onboard...

Your assumption is that companies will still keep staff on doing the commercial side of the guard's duties on all the trains that are DOO. History has shown otherwise. In general what happens when DOO occurs, is that a large number of staff either retire or move to other depots. Those that remain either get a shot at applying for drivers jobs, or become RPO's. They aren't just going to turn every guard into a travelling ticket collector on every train.

Even if the companies did actually do this, the savings would not be that great, as you'd still be paying someone between at least 18 to 20 grand a year to be on every train (assuming their role would include overseeing catering, fares, and basic safety). Of course it could be outsourced and done on the cheap, but then that would hardly improve things for the travelling passenger.

good on you autotank for reaching the grade of driver on a steamer, but you should remember your passengers are there for a good day out and you are not likely to encounter miscreants are you .
i can understand your thought processs because on most preserved lines the guard is really just ceremonial, with the driver having full responsibility for the train, and there does sometimes exist an atmosphere shall we say between the footplate and guard i think there is a long standing rather derogratory rhyme going about,
On the big railway as you call it, The Driver and Guard work as a team to ensure safe operation of the train , FGW HSS Guards are also trained shunters and can be called to perform this duty in times of break down /failure.
DOO does not improve the passenger experience at all, and i would expect most passengers welcome a fully trained guard on board who they know will lead in a crisis.
do you know there 15 reasons to evacuate an HST Coach whilst in service, all guards need to know this and perform the necessry procedures associated
.
Bit of a scenario  DOO Train crashes driver incapacitated, pouring with rain and dark ....HSTs do 125mph try being trackside at this speed , its a clean pair of trousers job for the inexperienced , also whats that nice loose red wire i have just seen, and isnt it thoughtful for the nice network rail to put a wooden box around that rail , oh dear i have just tripped over it in my wet coat , ok  lets walk this way past that nice white plate on the wall with 2 red squares on it

Dog box - On the SVR, the guard IS in charge of the train   

I detect two seperate issues and arguements here.

The first issue is should there be a second memeber of staff on the train with a high level of route knowledge, traction knowledge, fares and timetable information and detailed safety training?  My answer to this is an unequivical yes!  the presence of this extra person makes the train safer and customer service better.  I am happy for such a person to be present and to be reasonably well paid in recognition of the responsibilty of their job. I am happy for this extra person to be called a guard.

The second issue is not directly connected with the first.  It is why does the guard have to be involved in routine train dispatch issues that could be handled by the driver, releasing the guard for other jobs?  There does not seem to be any real safety arguement in favour of the guard opening the doors as opposed to the driver.   

I suspect that the real answer to that queston is that it the routine safety critical jobs were taken away from the guard, the rail unions would see (perhaps rightly) that as a first step in downgrading the guards role or even removing it.  In my view that position is understandable but if there was more flexibilty in the role of the guard, then the guard could spend his time doing more commercially important things (checking tickets etc) which would surely make him more "valuable" to the TOC accountants and more likely to be retained.???? 

I am very gald that there are guards on my trains.  I feel safer as a result. But it does seem to me that the job of dealing with the doors is something that guards cling to in part because of self interest (not that there is anything wrong with that - we all have mortgages to pay)

Just to confirm the FGW routes on which D.O.O. currently operates on all turbo operated services, regardless of the time of day.

Paddington-Banbury (via Reading and Oxford)
Oxford-Bicester Town
Paddington-Greenford
Slough-Windsor
Maidenhead-Bourne End
Twyford-Henley
Reading-Bedwyn (via Newbury)

Other trains, i.e. Adelantes/HST's, can also run D.O.O. but not in passenger service.

What about Reading - Basingstoke?

Also what happened when 165/6's operated the Oxford - Bristol services?

Reading-Basingstoke is not D.O.O. - you'll always find a slightly bored Conductor/Senior Conductor on board.

The Oxford-Bristol services also weren't operated with D.O.O. - though there were occasions when a Senior Conductor/Train Manager could not be resourced until Didcot, in which case the train was allowed to run as D.O.O. between Oxford and Didcot Parkway.

I'm ALWAYS happier on a Train with a Guard, It's Safer, Friendlier and who helps when some Drunk Hooligans or Worse Teenage School Kids get on board, yes I know problems only occur on odd occasions. but I find it strange that autotank is fully behind DOO yet works on a preserved line I doubt he's ever worked DOO.

I'm not even happy with Voyager Trains once the Guard (or Manager) closes the Doors who stops the Train IF somebody falls under it?

Technology Exists for a Jumbo Jet to fly with just ONE Pilot, But Do They?

WHY NOT!

HSTs are allowed DOO? :o

Sorry, that would be plain unsafe.

When not in passenger service, yes. Why would that be unsafe?

A full HST with goodness knows how many passengers and 1 staff (who is concentrating on driving).

With openable windows and doors as well!

Good job they have to be empty...

the analogy is good.  One pilot could manage but for safety reasons a second person is required as backup.  However, this system works on planes without union rules that say that the co-pilot rather than the captain is the only one allowed to say "doors to manual"

I'm not convinced it is a good analogy. If a driver of a train gets sick/dies he just takes his foot off the dead mans and the train stops - no major problem or risk to life. If a 747 pilot goes sick/dies in the middle of the Pacific and he is the only one on board who can fly the thing - BIG problem.

Great post from Tim though - he has summed up the issues well (even if I don't agree with him).

surely this does not apply to door opening by the driver?


This sums up the problem with industrial relatiosn on the railway.  Pay someone more if they have to work longer hours, or do something more difficult, but increasing pay just to press an extra button is stupid.   

Just to clarify - on the Turbo operated routes of Chiltern Railways and FGW using 165/6/8's, the driver opens and shuts the doors regardless of whether the train is DOO or 'guard' operated. The 'guard' gives permission for the driver to close the doors and leave the station via the buzzer codes. Therefore, there would need to be no modification to the trains to achieve full DOO on all routes.

With 180's, although the 'guard' closes the doors, the driver opens them (with the permission of the 'guard' via buzzer codes). Again though, there are all the relevant controls in the cab for the driver to open/shut the doors by themselves if they wish to.

HST's have no controls in the cab for the doors. The Central Door Locking system is totally operated by the 'guard'.

I'm not sure about the exact configuration of the other FGW operated units, but it's probably clear that (as usual with the railway), everything is FAR from standardised!  ;)

The advantage of the driver opening the doors is that the train is not delayed if the guard gets stuck issuing a ticket in the middle of the train.

I really can't see any problems with giving drivers "door open" buttons.

It wouldn't be practical on HSTs. For a start, the CDL system is not interlocked with the braking system and can effectively be opened whilst the train is moving. But then what happens at a short platform? The CDL system which is essentially a bolt securing a door is not sophisticated enough to have SDO from anywhere other than the panel it is being used for, presumably it is able to switch on the circuits in front/behind as required by the TM.

I am talking more about trains with frequent stops, like 150s etc.

As the FGW 15x pass through works for refurbishment they are receiving new drivers instrument / switch panels with the 'Door Release' push buttons omitted. The 142's do not have 'Door Release' buttons on the dashboard at all and the 143's have had these blanked off for some time. The 'Close Doors' controls mounted at various points in the cabs have long since been rendered inoperable or blanked off on all 14x & 15x.

Although there are detail differences in door operation between each class, all the West units, i.e. 143. 150/1. 150/2.  153. 158.  are configured for Driver/Guard working.  Refurbished 143s have had the DKS switch remounted to be accessible from the 'guards' vestibule and of course, 150/1s have a 'slam' local door.

This shouldn't happen if the guard is doing his/her job properley. i.e. knowing where you are at all times, so you can get to a door control panel, to release the doors.

So if as you say  DOO driver dies ,gets sick, foot off deadmans, train stops.....No Major problem then???? well here you are on the local stopper from Pad to Didcot Its 1800 and you are approaching Stockley Bridge Junction on the down Main and this very thing happens!!...No trained guard oh well i expect Miss@@@@ who is returning home to Maidenhead after going to a job interview in the city carrys a t key about is pts trained, and can remember how to operate the NRN and lay protection from a previous life....Answers on a postcard!!!!

Why the issue with protection.  You time you might need to do that in a train crash not if a train has come to a halt on the main line because the driver is incapacitated.

Here is a logical approach to the above situation:

1. Train in section for long time so signaller radios driver - no response. Trains in the area possibly stopped as a precaution (Train is stopped in track circuited area so signals to the rear protect)

2. Signaller sends out an NR response team or something similar to investigate. Possibly another train nearby could be asked to investigate on an adjacent line.

3. NR response team/other train on site probably within an half an hour of train coming to a halt and deal with situation.

Passengers sit in a nice warm turbo for an hour or so and have their tea a bit late. Hardly a risk to anybody, apart from the poor driver who is ill/dead.

Anyway the chance of a Driver keeling over at the controls is very remote so this should alone not be the reason for a Guard onboard.

it happened to a bus driver in Bath a month or two ago.  He collapsed at the wheel, and wrote off 6 parked cars before the bus came to a stop.  There were no passengers on board and so although passers-by called an ambulance quickly they had to wait for the fire brigade to arrive first to beeak into the bus and open the door.  (The driver disn't die and is recovering)

Modern aircraft technically require no-one on the flight deck, and haven't done for many years, and Jeremy Clarksons programme was testimony to this, nothing against those drivers posting here but I would rather there was no-one in the cab.

Just let me get on the train with a decent buffet/restaraunt service and I'll be happy.

(shall I duck?)

Yes, I think perhaps you'd better!  ;D

My personal view (just as a passenger, no past or present connection with the railways ::) ):

I like the idea that there's a qualified driver up front, able to deal with anything that happens; I also like the presence of a conductor to keep an eye on the rest of the train - open / close doors safely, sell tickets, deal with anything that happens.

Just having those two professional staff, with up to 200 passengers on our three-car 158s between Nailsea and BTM, is a reassuring feature of my daily commute, actually!

Your right.... but it does in my experience - certain guards who ALWAYS delay the train at each stop. >:(

My experiences take place on 150s, where the panels are at either end of the train (and 1/3 of the way down in the central cab - but using these door opening controls wastes more time, as the guard has to enter the locked out cab and activate the door controls before (s)he can use them)!

I agree - infortuntley, there are a few that don't do it properly and delay the train as a result.

By the way, the "all stoppers" run from Stratford / Shirley to Stourbridge. ;)

Yes, that should help (if they ever arrive!).

Well i suggest you take a look at GE/RT/8000/M2... where the section on assistance protection is explained. and as we are talking an incapacitated Driver it would fall to the Guard to undertake this duty

Assistance protection is to stop the train being hit by an assisting train.  The scenario is that a train has come to a stand because of a sick driver.  No protection required other than the existing signals.  Eventually someone would come to see if the driver is ok, probably a passing train. After that you will have staff, to lay assistance protection. Oh and a huge delay and, due to the wait for medical help, and perhaps a dead driver.

With crush loading, it can be difficult to get back to a door position, even those on the intermediate panels. It is difficult to know from what perspective a commentator can decide whether or not a guard, "is doing their job properly", but I would suggest that in this particular case, only remarks by those who have actual experience are valid.

That's all well and good if the train has failed in a track circuited section. In a section controlled by token, staff, etc, assistance protection would need to put down.

Guards are still needed it on the worcester route for that reason..  But in Doo areas this will not apply.

Funnily enough, I read an article today about how Tube drivers now make an announcement to the passengers if a door opens, for them to slide it shut. :D

The reason? One reason is to prevent delays. The other reason is so the driver does not have to force his/her way through the train (esp during rush hours)!

Trains can run empty on the Cotswold Line with nobody on board except the driver. Concerns were raised about the above scenario, but rules have been stretched/bended to allow it with agreement of the unions.

DOO comes in two forms

DOO(P) Driver Only Operation Passenger

DOO Driver Only Operation

In DOO(P) the line must be cleared as suitable with driver aids provided at stations where required and CSR radio fitted to allow the driver to talk directly to the signaller from the train. Additionally if the drivers Safety Divice (dead mans handle) is activated an automatic emergancy call is placed via the radio to the signaller. Also the signaller is able to use the PA system on the train to talk to the passengers.

DOO can be operated by any train but with no passengers on board. The signaller must be advised of this.

Hope this clears up some confusion

Hello everyone.

Interesting thread. I have been lurking here for a bit, but felt the need to share a few thoughts - most have been said already. I used to be a guard for Southern. Basically, on the Southern network DOO(P) services were limited to London suburban routes and some Brighton mainline trains. Everywhere else had guarded passenger services.

The guard has a vital safety role to prevent emergencies and deal with them as they occur. They look out for the safety of passengers. They provide information and assistance to passengers.

Some of the criticisms against guards is that they spend all day in the back cab. On Southern, we had to work 319, 455 and 456 units from the rear cab because there were no other door controls on those units to use, further more the rulebook prohibits the use of the front cab for the guard to do train dispatch! It is the poor design of the units, that makes it difficult for some to do their job.

I had to laugh at comments about door vestibules being too crowded for a guard to get on. It's true it does happen (especially if there is no external door to the cab). Have you thought for a moment though what would happen if the train driver needed to contact the signaller from a signal post telephone in the same circumstances? With no external cab door, does one suggest they climb out of the cab window? Hardly an argument for driverless trains, but one for better train design and strengthening of services.

The benefit of a guard on the dispatch procedure is that one can step away from the train and really get a good view of the platform. As good as DOO monitors and mirrors are, they don't show the whole story. On Southern, policy was for driver to release doors, in fact on 377s guards didn't even have a pair of release buttons! I can see the argument for and against, personally it never bothered me. There were incidents of drivers releasing doors wrong side, or with the train stopped in the wrong part of a platform, or at a station that wasn't going to be called at. All it meant for me was that they took the flack, not me.

The guard dispatching at stations also meant that where they were unstaffed, there could be a second pair of eyes checking the signal if there was one, to prevent a SPAD. Because the guard had a good view of the train and platform, they are able to assist disabled, elderly people etc... board and alight - now that doesn't happen on any DOO(P) trains does it?

Passcom activation - on DOO(P), the driver is supposed to proceed to the next station before stopping to deal with whatever the problem is. For some routes that could be quite a distance. The guard is able to attend to the problem straight away.

Some people have said that guards should be relieved of door control duties because of getting stuck inside busy trains. Any half-decent guard knows when they need to return to their door controls (and they know where the nearest panel is too). On any of the busy services I did they were either so rammed that doing tickets was pointless, or there would be a steady stream of people constantly walking up to you at wherever you dispatched the train from last. Therefore you had enough tickets to issue, queries to resolve without needing to walk through.


So I may be a bit biased, but to coin a phrase the RMT used to use in the old days, "Let the guard guard, and drivers drive!"

Thanks for that very informative post, Network SouthEast - and a warm welcome to the FGW Coffee Shop forum!  ;) :D ;D

Might not be strictly related,

The 1630 London Padd - Taunton, once terminated at Taunton, runs empty to Laira. No Staff or passengers onboard.

and To the comment about the guard not being able to get back onto the train to dispatch, it does happen. I saw it at Bath Spa with a mid evening Portsmouth Harbour service during the Christmas Shopping season. A 5 Car was indeed a 2 Car unit, now imagine the mayhem that caused...  ::)

I would hope there is at least one member of staff on board  ;D

There is to Taunton, Then all of the passengers and staff get off, and as I said, it runs empty to Laira

I think Ollie is referring to a driver  :D

Netowork South East,

Thanks for your reply. Why are guards not allowed to use the front door panels?

front door panels are not a safe position, as general rule guards should despatch from rear of the train

I might have not communicated it as good as I could have. The guard can use the front door control panel as long as it is within the passenger area. If it involves going into the drivers cab, then the rulebook does not permit this. I presume this is so that drivers are not distracted.

I disagree with that. You should dispatch from wherever you have the best view.

On LM 150s, the front panel is not IN the drivers cab (but in the "staff only" section).

But guards never use it - even if they are stuck at the front selling a ticket when the train pulls up.

My apologies for quoting selectively from your post, Btline, but this is something that does annoy me - almost every time we have a 150 on the 1755 at BTM for NLS, for example!

The doors immediately behind the cab on a 150 used to be marked quite clearly, 'staff access only'.  However, since the refurb, these doors merely continue the 'dynamic lines' advertising of various local attractions in the FGW area.  The problem is, that just encourages a few impatient passengers to try to push their way on board through that doorway, while the incoming driver is trying to hand over to the relief driver - and both of those staff then have to point out to those selfish passengers that the cab door is actually intended 'for staff only'!

Why did the refurb not include the replication of those 'staff access only' messages on the doors??

Those Dynamic lines are the priority!

Trains late, staff in the wrong place, fares going up...

But as long as First can splash dynamic lines on, it'll be ok!

I wonder if they'll give up the Scotrail franchise, now it has to have the Saltaire livery (I would put money on the main reason for this new livery being introduced is the prevention of dynamic lines being applied!).

That would be Saltire, I take it - I'm not sure Alex Salmond wants to promote a mill and model village in the heart of Yorkshire, worthy of celebration though it is.

The Scottish Executive has ordered the livery is used to stop vast amounts of money being wasted on repainting trains and rebranding stations every time the Scotrail franchise changes hands. How about bringing back InterCity - the brand we invented that is now used everywhere but Britain - NSE and Regional Railways liveries too....

DOH!!! ;D

No - I think the cost is a cover up.

If I were Salmond and I sensed that dynamic lines could be appearing soon, I was pass a similar law!

Unfortunately, FTPE have contaminated Scotland with them......


Is that SWT Metro?

There are worse! Pink doors on XC! :o

Arriva (enough said!) Trains Wales' blue.

Merseyrail canary!

'one' (errrghh)

NX - white which is now grey (I wonder why..... :D ).

In darkest Wiltshire, we use front door panel, but only local door at the very short platformed Avoncliff and Dilton Marsh.  This is to ensure that driver can platform the train correctly.  It also prevents folk from opening other doors and falling out, which could be a tad distressing.  At Melksham International Parkway, some drivers will get a 2 car 150 right on the paltform, but many prefer the guard to use front local.  A 2 car 158 is a shade too long BTW, so front local is the order of the day.

Yes Your right. When I travel from Bristol - Frome on the 1649 or 1749 The guard normally opens the doors at freshford from the rear, walks down the platform and despatches from the front. This is so they are in the right place for Avoncliff because the train is always full and standing and they cant get to the front... :P They say the working it should be a 3 car. But i've only ever seen it as a 2 car :(

Off peak hours and the guard despatches from the rear at Freshford :)

In my vast experience of train travel from Melksham (erm, actually, just once: on Saturday 29 March 2008 ::) ), that's exactly what happened. ;D